The Central Government is the appropriate authority for land acquired for its purposes, and the State Government cannot impose conditions on its sale.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.

Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Manish J. Patel, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent No. 2. Ms. Dharitri Pancholi, learned AGP, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘BSNL’, for short) to execute the registered sale deed in favor of present petitioner No. 1, being the successful bidder, in respect of vacant land bearing Plot No. 5D, CS No. 146 & 353, Opp. Panjarapole, Ghod-Dod Road, Karimabad, Surat, Gujarat- 395001, having Site Area – 5359 Sqm., Built-up area-Nil, having Geographical Coordinates: Latitude-21.174629, Longitude-72.814618 (hereinafter referred to as “land/property in question”) and having property surroundings, as mentioned in the Request for Proposal (hereinafter referred to as “RFP”) document, by obtaining No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as “NOC”) from District Collector, Surat, forthwith.

1.1 Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners in petitioner No.1 – Limited Liability Partnership (hereinafter referred to as “LLP”), as claimed in the petition.

2. There are further reliefs also claimed in the petition, which are as under:-

“9. (B) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to issue NOC in favour of BSNL forthwith as to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioners - successful bidder in respect of land bearing Plot No.5D, Opp.Panjrapole, Ghod-Dod Road, Surat;

(C) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding that the term "Company" mentioned in Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would not include the company of Central Government i.e. BSNL and thereby be further pleased to direct the District Collector to issue NOC forthwith so as to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners;

(D) Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to issue NOC in favour of BSNL forthwith irrespective of the inter-se dispute between the respondents regarding the applicability of Section 44(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, subject to the final outcome of the present petition; ”

3. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted that vide OfficeMemorandum dated 29.10.2019 by the Department of Telecommunications (hereinafter referred to as “DoT”), PSU-I Division, the Union Cabinet, in its meeting held on 23.10.2019, considered and approved the proposals of “DoT” for “Revival of BSNL and MTNL” vide its Cabinet Note dated 22.10.2019.

3.1 By the said OfficeMemorandum, decision of Union Cabinet is issued, which contains approval of Cabinet vide para2(vii), which reads as under:-

“Monetisation of land/building assets following DIPAM guidelines for asset monetisation. The proceeds of asset monetisation will be credited to BSNL/MTNL to service the debt, CAPEX and other requirements. The progress of asset monetisation will be reviewed by a committee formed under the chairmanship of Pr. Advisor to Hon’ble Prime Minister with Cabinet Secretary, Secretary (DEA), Secretary (T), Secretary (DIPAM) and Secretary (MoHUA) as members.”

3.2 Pursuant thereto, with the approval of Honourable Minister of Communications, the Director (Asset Management) addressed a letter to CMD, BSNL, H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath New Delhi, intimating that BSNL will follow the policy for monetizing its land and building assets through outright sale through transfer.

3.3 Pursuant thereto, respondent – BSNL issued “RFP” document for the sale of “land/property in question” by e-tender dated 28.10.2022.

3.4 There appears no dispute that the petitioner No. 1 – “LLP” is the highest b