ORDER :

1. The petitioners 1 to 3 herein, are the owners of Ac. 56.24 guntas of land in various survey numbers in Dharapura and Mayaganahalli Villages of Ramanagara Taluk, Karnataka. The 4th petitioner is a developer who is seeking to enter into a fresh development agreement with the petitioners 1 to 3. The above lands were acquired under various registered deeds of sale in the years 2005 and 2006. The petitioners had entered into a joint development agreement with one M/s. Agrigold Projects Limited (arrayed as the 3rd respondent herein) on 20.10.2012 for the purpose of development of Ac. 18.34 guntas out of Ac. 56.24 guntas of land. The land was to be developed into a residential layout within a period of 24 months. The 2nd petitioner would be entitled to 60% of the developed sites and the 3rd respondent would be entitled to 40% of the developed sites under the joint development agreement. The 3rd respondent had paid the 2nd petitioner an interest free security deposit of Rs. 16 crores. These deposits, which were interest free, were to be returned to the 3rd respondent upon successful completion of the project.

2. It appears that the 3rd respondent did not undertake the development of the land and various disputes had arisen between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent resulting in litigation being initiated in the Courts in Karnataka. While the matter stood thus, respondents 1 and 2 had initiated proceedings against the 3rd respondent under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (for short ‘the Act’). Respondents 1 and 2, under these proceedings, had attached various assets of the 3rd respondent, situated in the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. One of the properties attached by the 2nd respondent was Ac. 18.34 guntas of land given for development by the petitioners herein to the 3rd respondent.

3. The 1st respondent, by G.O.Ms. No. 136 dated 12.09.2022, had issued an ad interim order of attachment under Section 3 of the Act attaching an extent of Ac. 250.00 of land in Dharapura and Mayaganahalli villages. Petitioners 1 and 2 were shown to be the owners of the said land as benamidars of the 3rd respondent.

4. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said ad interim attachment by way of G.O.Ms. No. 136 dated 12.09.2022, have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition for a declaration that the said G.O.Ms. No. 136 is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law besides being violative of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same and direct respondents 1 and 2 to release and handover all the original title documents pertaining to the petitioners’ lands and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

5. The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of various extents of land in Dharapura and Mayaganahalli villages out of which Ac. 18.34 guntas of land was given on development to the 3rd respondent under development agreement dated 20.10.2012. The petitioners contend that, apart from this transaction, there are no other transactions between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. They also contend that the subject lands were purchased by them, for themselves and not as any benami holders of the 3rd respondent or it’s sister concerns.

6. The petitioners contend that the provisions of the Act would only permit respondents 1 and 2 to attach the money which has been given for acquiring any rights and the same would be restricted to the interest free security deposit of Rs. 16 crores given by the 3rd respondent. They would further submit that Section 3 of the Act empowers respondents 1 and 2 to attach the assets acquired by a financial institution from the funds collected from the public. This would, at best mean, a right, if any, under the development agreement and the same would not extend to the land belonging to the petitioners as the said lan