Disposed

Mr. Ch. Umesh Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Oct 2012PIL/175/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL challenging a Government Order allotting land to a political party, the Court accepted the State's prima facie stance regarding alleged misuse. The Court directed the government to proceed after serving proper notice to the respondents and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The State Government is directed to act in accordance with law after serving proper notice on the unofficial respondents Nos. 3 and 4; the PIL is disposed of.

Mr. Ch. Umesh Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.175 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:3.10.2012

¶5

Between: Ch. Umesh Rao

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶8

…. Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶10

Public Interest Litigation No.175 of 2012

¶11

Order: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶12

We have heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Sumon, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2; Sri K. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri K.Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶13

It appears, in this petition challenge has been thrown by the petitioner with regard to G.O. Ms. No. 966, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, which was passed by the Government on 27.11.2004 allotting land to respondent No.3. The petitioner in this public interest litigation is trying to point out that respondent No.4-company is carrying on its business in the land in question in violation of the said Government order. In this connection, Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the clauses mentioned in the said G.O. Ms. No.966, dated 27.11.2004, which are set out herein for the purpose of dealing with the matter in question:

¶14

(i) The Telengana Rashtra Samithi Party will continue to retain the land allotted to it, as long as, it has got the status of “Recognised Political Party” by Election Commission of India, otherwise it will be reverted back to the Government, automatically.

¶15

(ii) The land allotted to the party office should not be utilized either in full or in part for any Residential or

¶16

Commercial purpose or alienated to any Person or Institution.

¶17

(iii) It should be utilized only for the purpose, for which it is allotted.

¶18

(iv) The alienee will commence and complete the construction of the building on the land within one year from the date of issue of the allotment orders.

¶19

(v) For violation of any of the above conditions, the alienation shall automatically stand terminated and the land along with the buildings, if any, will be resumed by the Government without payment of any cost for any structures or such other improvements as might have been constructed or carried out by the alienee on the land.”

¶20

We have considered the same.

¶21

Our attention has also been drawn to the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of respondent No.4.

¶22

We have also gone through the objects stated in the Memorandum of Association of Telangana Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd.,/respondent No.4. It is not in dispute as pointed out by the learned Counsel for respondent No.3 that there is no iota of evidence to show that the said company has been constituted under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) for the benefit of respondent No.3.

¶23

Since it also appears to us that the respondent No.4-company can take necessary steps in accordance with the provisions of law before the appropriate authority even to change their objects as and when required under the provisions of the Act or it can change even the Registered Office of the company where it has been situated now. However, these questions do not require to be adjudicated by us at this stage since the main question which has been put forward before us is that the land allotted to a party office should not be utilised either in full or in part for any purpose, such as residential or commercial purpose by the said party.

¶24

We have also considered the counter affidavit which has been filed by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, the 2^nd respondent herein, wherein it has been specifically stated by the

¶25

said respondent that steps have already been taken by the State Government and that the said respondent has no knowledge about leasing out the Telengana Bhavan to respondent No.4 for commercial purpose.

¶26

No documents in fact also placed before the Court to substantiate such proposal which has been stated by the petitioner in this petition. Therefore, the statement which has been made by the 2^nd respondent in the counter affidavit has to be accepted at this stage. Further with regard to the allegations levelled by the petitioner in this petition are concerned, the 2^nd respondent has stated that steps have already been taken by the Government in the matter and further prima facie they have been able to find out that there is violation of some conditions mentioned in G.O. Ms. No. 966, dated 27.11.2004 and an appropriate notice also would be addressed to the unofficial respondent No.3 calling for its explanation.

¶27

It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent-State authorities that they will take necessary steps in the matter in consultation with the Law Department and the Collector, Hyderabad would be appraised to take steps in the matter.

¶28

However, it cannot also be brushed aside that effective steps will be taken by the Government with regard to the question whether the unofficial respondents are using the property in question contrary to the said Government order, G.O. Ms. No. 966, dated 27.11.2004 or not.

¶29

But, in our opinion, whatever steps the State would take in the matter in question as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities, the State Government shall take the same after giving proper notice to the unofficial respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, we direct the State Government to act in the matter in accordance with the provisions of law and after serving proper notice on the unofficial respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The unofficial respondents shall also be at liberty to take steps in the matter and to deal with the same in accordance with the provisions of law in due course. The public interest litigation is accordingly disposed of.

¶30

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶31

______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J

¶32

3.10.2012

¶33

pnb

Mr. Ch. Umesh Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ch. Umesh Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

D. Veeraswamy Vs The Govt. of a.P, Revenue Department

Smt. N.Venkata Lakshm Vs The District Collector

Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam, Vs The District Collector

Dr. Irfan Shaik, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Palepu Suryanarayana Vs Rangaraya Medical College

Nadula Parirakshana Samiti Vs Government of India

Pattana Pedala Sankshema Sangam, Vs The District Collector

M. Ramesh Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra PRadesh

D. Veeraswamy Vs The Govt. of a.P, Revenue Department

Forum for a Better Hyderabad, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

R. Navaneeth Kumar Vs The Commissioner

M/s Sri Lekha Industires, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pilli Suvarna Vs The District Collector

Andhra Pradesh, Health and Medical Housing and Vs Sri Laxmi Industries