The judgment establishes the principle that land allotment conditions must be adhered to within a reasonable time, and the communication of consequences in a show cause notice need not explicitly state proposed actions if discernible from the notice and subsequent reply.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner for the following relief:

“…to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring G.O.Ms.No. 151 Revenue (Assistant. I) dated 22.03.2013 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust as ultra vires of powers of the first respondent and as in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and issue a consequential direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the ownership and possession of the petitioner society in Ac.5-00 of land in Sy.No. 401 out of Sy.No. 314 in Kapulupadu village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in any manner whatsoever, either under the impugned G.O.Ms.No. 151 Revenue (Assignment I) dated; 22.02.2013 or otherwise and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court has heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Sumon, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The facts are not seriously in dispute. Learned senior counsel for the writ petitioner points out that Ac.5-00 cents of land was allotted to the writ petitioner on 20.02.2009 on payment of total sale consideration of Rs.1,46,25,000/- by the writ petitioner and proceedings were issued on 24.10.2009 acknowledging the same and. Physical delivery of the property measuring Ac.5-00 cents was given on 07.11.2009. The petitioner wanted to establish a world class Business and Hospitality School and the land was allotted for this purpose. Learned senior counsel points out that soon thereafter a notice was received in February, 2010 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.1,46,25,000/- towards conversion fee from agricultural land to nonagricultural land. He points out that immediately the petitioner made a representation which was pending and no decision was taken on this issue till recently. Petitioner’s contention that nothing needs to be paid, but ultimately overruled by the respondents during the pendency of this Writ on 16.02.2023. It is submitted that due to this issue and the delay in respondents taking a decision, the petitioner could not continue with the work and therefore the delay cannot be attributed to the writ petitioner. Learned senior counsel also submits that the show cause notice, which is issued to the writ petitioner, and led to the order of cancellation, did not specify the consequences that would follow. Relying upon Gorkha Security Services vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2014 SC 3371 learned senior counsel argues that show cause notice did not state that cancellation would be affected and therefore it is submitted that the same is contrary to law. In conclusion learned senior counsel submits that there is no delay in the implementation of the project and in the alternative the order of the cancellation also should be set aside because the show cause notice did not clarify the action that would be taken.

4. In reply to this Sri C. Sumon, appearing for the respondent-State argues that the alienation in this case is subject to certain conditions only. He points out that from the 1st G.O.Ms.No. 218 issued clearly states that the allotment is subject to the conditions stipulated in BSO No. 24 and also securing of necessary statutory clearances. He also relies upon the proceedings, dated 24.10.2009, which clearly state the conditions of the alienation. These conditions are that the petitioner should not infringe any of the conditions of the grant and the land should only be utilised for establishment of world class Business and Hospitality School subject to the statutory clearances. It is also specified that BSO 24 would apply. Even in the show cause notice it is pointed out that there is a reference to BSO 24 and also to the fact that the land was found vacant on the ground. He submits that BSO 24 also stipulates that resumption of land in case of lack of de