Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, K.RAMASWAMY
India Cable Co.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-02-85
URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - SECTION 20 - EXEMPTION - FRAUD - LOCUS STANDI - NATURAL JUSTICE - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY - GOVERNMENT ORDER - JUDICIAL REVIEW - PRINCIPLES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant in the exempted premises and the adjacent land, filed Writ Petition No. 3568 of 1984 seeking a writ or directing declaring the impugned G. O. as void on the ground that the same has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also on the ground that the Government has acted arbitrarily in granting exemption. Smt. Kanakam who is one of the joint owners of the land has filed Writ Petition No. 5449 of 1985 questioning the same G. O. and in effect she is supporting the plea taken by the Indian Cable Company Ltd.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner has locus standi to question the impugned G. O. by way of a writ petition. The court also held that the impugned G. O. should not be struck down for violation of the principles of natural justice, on the ground that the petitioner is not heard by the Government before granting exemption. The court further held that the exemption order does not involve adverse civil consequences so far as the petitioner is concerned. The court also held that the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim that he has suffered a legal injury and consequently he has a right of being heard even at the time of passing the G. O. , more so when his rights as a tenant if any are not taken away by the impugned G. O. The court also held that the Government has not acted arbitrarily in granting this exemption and therefore the petitioner has locus standi to question the same. The court also held that the exemption order is not vitiated by fraud.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to question the impugned G. O. by way of a writ petition? 2. Whether the impugned G. O. should be struck down for violation of the principles of natural justice, on the ground that the petitioner is not heard by the Government before granting exemption? 3. Whether the exemption order involves adverse civil consequences so far as the petitioner is concerned? 4. Whether the petitioner can as a matter of right claim that he has suffered a legal injury and consequently he has a right of being heard even at the time of passing the G. O. , more so when his rights as a tenant if any are not taken away by the impugned G. O. ? 5. Whether the Government has acted arbitrarily in granting this exemption and therefore the petitioner has locus standi to question the same? 6. Whether the exemption order is vitiated by fraud?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A person interested and does not come under the category of busy body has locus standi to question the impugned G. O. by way of a writ petition. 2. No order involving adverse civil consequences can be passed against any person without giving him an opportunity to be heard against the passing of such order and this rule applies irrespective whether the proceeding in which it is passed is a quasi-judicial or an administrative proceeding. 3. The exemption order does not involve adverse civil consequences so far as the petitioner is concerned. 4. A person cannot as a matter of right claim that he has suffered a legal injury and consequently he has a right of being heard even at the time of passing the G. O. , more so when his rights as a tenant if any are not taken away by the impugned G. O. 5. The Government has not acted arbitrarily in granting this exemption and therefore the petitioner has locus standi to question the same. 6. Any judgment or order of an administrative authority is a nullity if obtained by fraud and the same can be questioned before a Court.
Final Decision: Both the writ petitions are dismissed with costs.
JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.
( 1 ) ANY welfare legislation, when enforced strictly, is likely to cause some hardship to one person or the other having interest in the property sought to be subjected to the rigour of such legislation. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is one such welfare legislation and it is also included in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", however to some extent empowers the State Government to grant exemptions to alleviate such hardships. The State Government by G. O. Ms. No. 4778 Revenue (UCII) Department, dated 11-11-80, exercising its power under section 20 (1) of the Act exempted an excess vacant land measuring 4776. 84 Square mts. bearing premises No. 9-1-87 situated at St. Johns Road, Secunderabad in Hyderabad urban agglomeration, held jointly by Sarvasri C. T. Vijaya Raghavan, C. T. Srinivasan, Smt. Leela Thanushkoti and Smt. Kanakam. It is this G. O. that is challenged in both these writ petitions. India Cable Company Ltd, a tenant in the exempted premises and the adjacent land has filed Writ Petition No. 3568 of 1984 seeking a writ or directing declaring the impugned G. O. as void on the ground that the same has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and also on the ground that the Government has acted arbitrarily in granting exemption. Smt. Kanakam who is one of the joint owners of the land has filed Writ Petition No. 5449 of 1985 questioning the same G. O. and in effect she is supporting the plea taken by the Indian Cable Company Ltd. and she is also respondent No. 7 in W. P. No. 3568 of 1984. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred as arrayed in W. P. No. 3568 of 84.
( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner, viz. , India Cable Company Ltd. is as follows :- The petitioner-company was registered under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Calcutta and also having its business inter alia its Branch Office at No. 23, Sarojinidevi Road, Secunderabad. The company manufactures and sells electrical cables and also undertakes the contracts relating to the erection of electrical installation and equipments of Thermal Stations, etc. On 1-10-1958 one Sri C. P. Thanushkoti father of respondents 4, 5 and 7 and husband of respondent No. 6, viz. , Sri C. T. Vijay Raghavan, Sri C. T. Srinivasan, Smt. Kanakam and Smt. Leela Thanushkoti, respectively, leased out the premises on a monthly rent of Rs. 400. 00 to the petitioner-company for housing its branch office and the residence of its Assistant Manager and his family. The total area of the tenanted premises including the main buildings, two out-houses, etc. , and open space all around with a big compound wall was about 18,000 Sq. yards. The main building was used for the office of the company and the resident of the Assistant Manager and his family, and the out-houses and the open space are being used for storing cable drums and parking of the vehicle. At the request of Sri C. P. Thanushkoti the petitioner-company released 2,000 sq. yards and later again it released 6020 sq. yards which was leased out to one Sri J. N. Misra for the construction of a cinema theatre, known as Sangeet. After the construction of Sangeet theatre a new entrance was opened and different Municipal Nos. viz. 9-1-87 and 9-1-119-/1 were given to the tenanted premises. After the death of Sri C. P. Thanushkoti the tenanted premises devolved upon respondents 4 to 7. On 30-4-1981 the petitioner-company received a letter from the 4th respondent informing that the entire premises was sold to the 8th respondent-firm and directing the petitioner to pay the future rents to the said 8th respondent-firm with effect from 1-5-1981. Since then the petitioner-company was paying rents to the 8th respondent which is a partnership-firm known as Divakar Maternity and Nursing Home represented by its Managing Partner Wilfed Divakar. The 8th respondent-f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
