Disposed

M/S.Neuland Laboratories Ltd. v. Govt of A.P Rep.by Its Prl Secretary and 3 Others

Telangana HC18 Mar 2011WP/6446/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court addressed the petitioner’s grievance regarding an attempt to dispossess it from factory premises while an application for land assignment on market value was pending. The court directed the respondent to expedite the pending application and prohibited dispossession until a decision is made.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to dispose of the pending application for allotment of land on market value; directed that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed until orders are passed.

M/S.Neuland Laboratories Ltd. Vs Govt of A.P… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 6446 OF 2011.

¶3

DATED 18^th March, 2011

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

M/s. Neuland Laboratories Limited

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretary, Hyderabad and ors.

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 6446 OF 2011.

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

The petitioner-company is dealing with manufacture of life saving bulk drugs. It purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.No. 490/2 along with the land in Sy.Nos. 347, 473 and 474 situate at Domadugu and Bonthaplly villages in Narsapur Taluk, Madak District from M/s. Unicon Machinery Manufacturers Limited under registered sale deed dated 28.08.1984. The petitioner company obtained necessary permissions from the competent authorities to construct factory buildings. Thereafter, the petitioner commenced production in the year 1986. The name of the petitionercompany was mutated in the Revenue Register No.1 on

¶14

15.07.1985. While so, in the year 1995, the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated proceedings under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 against the petitioner and held on 6.1.1995 that the petitioner is holding assigned land measuring Ac.1.35 guntas in Sy.No. 490/1 of Bonthapally. The petitioner-company filed appeal under Section 4(A) of the Act of 1997 and the Revenue Divisional Officer vide order dated 7.2.1997 upheld the orders of the Mandal Revenue Officer, however, liberty was given to the petitioner to file an application to the competent authority to assign the land on market value. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an application for assignment of the subject land on market value and the said application is still pending consideration.

¶15

Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent has visited the premises of the petitionercompany and asked them to vacate the premises and plant expeditiously. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that more than 600 works are working in the petitionercompany and if the petitioner is asked to vacate the premises then and there, irreparable loss would be caused to the company and the lives of the workers will be thrown on road. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitionercompany has raised construction way back in the year 1986 after obtaining necessary permissions from the competent authorities and that the application filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the lower appellate authority to allot the land on market value is still pending consideration and

¶16

without disposing of the said application, the fourth respondent is taking coercive steps to dispossess the petitioner, and that too, without following the due procedure under the law.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner has purchased the assigned land, they violated the conditions of the assignment.

¶18

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that necessary permission had been given to the petitioner by the Revenue Division Officer vide order dated 7.2.1997 to file an application for assignment of the land on payment of market value and the said application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the said order is still pending consideration and the same has not been decided so far.

¶19

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of the representation/application dated10.02.2006 submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 7.2.1997 for allotment of the land in question on market value, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Till the orders are passed on the said application, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the subject land.

¶20

There shall be no order as to costs. .

¶21

JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶22

Dated 18^th March, 2011. Note: Issue CC in three days (BO) Msnro

M/S.Neuland Laboratories Ltd. v. Govt of A.P Rep.by Its Prl Secretary and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Neuland Laboratories Ltd. v. Govt of A.P Rep.by Its Prl Secretary and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jyothi Reddy Vs The Joint Collector

K.Nageshwar Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division

A.Chencu Reddy Vs The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District A.P.

M.Sadanand Vs The Governmentof Andhra Pradesh

A.Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o a.L.v.Narayana Reddy, Vs The District collector, Ysr District.

Shaik Jaffar Basha Vs The District Collector