SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(AP) 689

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY
Me.Oowell and Co.Ltd.Chennai - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., Revenue, Urban Land Ceilings Dept. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-08-00

Headnote:

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 20 (2) - Writ Petition - Land case - Possession - Petitioner owns large extent of lands at various places in India for the purpose of establishment of its manufacturing plants - challenge was made to the process of taking over possession of the urban land by the Respondents without passing final Orders under Section 20 (2) of the Act, 1976 while W. P was Bled challenging the notification issued by the Government in G. O. withdrawing the exemption already granted and for consequential declaration that the notices issued under section 10 of Act, 1976 is illegal and without jurisdiction - Held, It is no doubt true that when once the exemption was granted subject to fulfilment of certain conditions and when the conditions were not fulfilled for various reasons, it would be competent for the Government to cancel the exemption, but when the Company makes alternate proposals, it is incumbent on the part of the Government to consider the same keeping in view the provisions laid down in Section 20 (1) (a) of the Act - It is well established principle of law that the administrative authorities are required to record reasons when the Orders have the effect of denying the civil rights of the citizens - Fair hearing and fairness in action are essential ingredients in administrative actions - Thus, the Orders of cancellation must not only be supported by the reasons but such reasons must also be relevant to the issue - In the instant case, I do not find any reasons whatsoever leave alone the relevancy, in cancelling the exemption already granted. The impugned Order only says that it was rejected in earlier G. O. therefore, the Order is passed under Section 20 (2) of the Act - This will not meet the statutory requirement - As observed supra, giving reasons is one of the essential requirements in quasi-judicial proceedings. Failure to observe these principles vitiates the entire proceedings - Answered accordingly

G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) THE matter arises under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

( 2 ) ALL the Writ Petitions can be disposed of by common Order. In W. P. No, 23773 of 1998, a challenge was made to the process of taking over possession of the urban land by the Respondents without passing final Orders under Section 20 (2) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 while W. P-No. 33741 of 1998 was Bled challenging the notification issued by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 630 dated: 26. 7. 1997 withdrawing the exemption already granted and for consequential declaration that the notices issued under section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is illegal and without jurisdiction. W. P. No. 9481 of 1999 was filed seeking declaration that the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and: Regulation) Act, 1976 are not applicable to the excess land held by the petitioner-Company in view of repealing Act 5 of 1999 which entered the force with effect from 11-1-1999.

( 3 ) THE decision in W. P. No. 33741 of 1998 would govern the other Writ Petitions. Therefore, we refer to the facts narrated in the aforesaid Writ Petition for proper appreciation of the issue.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is that it is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act having Registered Office at Madras and Corporate Office at Bangalore. It is a part of U. B. Group of Companies. The petitioner owns large extent of lands at various places in India for the purpose of establishment of its manufacturing plants.

( 5 ) M/s. Hindustan Polymers Limited Visakhapatnam was engaged in manufacture of Polystyrene, Styrenemonomer etc. The installed capacity of that Company was 7,500 M. Ts enhanced to 40,000 M. Ts. The said Company had filed necessary statements under the Urban Land Ceiling Act and it was declared surplus landholder. However, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 1033, dated 8-10-1992 granting exemption to M/s. Hindustan Polymers to an extent of 67. 2165 Hectares from the provisions of the Chapter-Ill of the Act subject to certain conditions stipulated therein. Subsequently, M/s. Hindustan Polymers was declared as a sick company and amalgamated with M/s. Me Dowell Company, the petitioner-Company by the Orders passed by the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court in Company petitions. Thus the assets and liabilities of the M/s. Hindustan Polymers vested in the petitioner M/s. Me Dowell Company.

( 6 ) WHILE the matter stood thus, the Government issued notice dated 19-7-1996 to show-cause why the action should not be taken to withdraw the exemption granted in G. O. Ms. No. 1033, to which reply was submitted on 29-10-1996 giving reasons under which the conditions could not be fulfilled and sought permission for transfer of lands to M/s. L. G. Polymers India Private Limited. The petitioner also sought permission of the Government to utilise the Waltair uplands situated in S. Nos. 1011/36 of Block No. 39 of Waltair Ward for establishing Beach Resorts, Hotels etc. The Government issued G. O. Ms. No. 526, dated 21-6-1997 permitting the petitioner to transfer the land to M/s. L. G. Polymers, but, however, rejected the request of the petitioner for converting the lands at Waltair uplands, as holiday resorts and stated that separate Orders will be passed. It is the case of the petitioner that no final Orders were received by the Company. But, however, they received a copy of the letter dated 6-7-1998 which was addressed by the Special Officer, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam to the Chief Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad to issue a revised demand draft for Rs. 51,977-50ps. on Bangalore towards the value of the excess land. The petitioner made enquiries with regard to the said notification and ultimately found that the Respondents published notices under Section 10 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short the act ) and thereafter took possession of the lands at Waltair up










































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top