IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
IDBI Banking Limited & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 7 of 2009
Decided On : 15-02-2022
Companies Act, 1956 - Sanction for alienation of land - Allotment of land - Vacant land out of the land - Industrial Development Bank of India, a Government Banking Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has filed the writ petition in the year 2008 and later on, the name of the petitioner company was changed to IDBI Bank Limited after following the due process of law as provided under the Companies Act, 1956 - factum of change of name has also been recognized by the Reserve Bank of India, vide - Change in name took place on account of the fact that the Life Insurance Company of India has acquired major share holdings in writ petitioner/respondent Bank and now it is known as IDBI Bank Limited facts further reveal that Bank at time when it was completely owned and controlled by Government of India, in order to establish a staff college, training centre and other buildings for catering to development of the employees of petitioner Bank, other Banks as well as foreign banks, was in need of land in township of Hyderabad – Held, Petitioner Bank has established their institution over the land in question - They have developed the entire area, plantation has been carried out, entire area is enclosed by a boundary wall and there appears to be no justification in resuming land without following due process of law that too when consideration is received by the State Government at market value and considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition preferred by Bank - No statutory provision of law has been brought to the notice of this Court by the State Government, which entitles the State Government to resume the land, which has been allotted on payment of market value i.e., price of the land - Order of resumption also does not state that State Government is refunding the price at market value at the time the resumption proceedings have taken place subsequently - Bank is not utilizing the entire land allotted to them - Learned Single Judge has observed that the Bank has paid at the relevant point of time a sum Central Public Works Department for creating more infrastructure to meet its growing need and the aforesaid fact is not disputed by the State of Telangana. Meaning thereby, heavy investment has been made by Bank in respect of the unutilized area - Writ appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated 13.11.2008 passed in W.P.No.4926 of 2008 by the learned Single Judge.
2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that Industrial Development Bank of India, a Government Banking Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 has filed the writ petition in the year 2008 and later on, the name of the petitioner company was changed to IDBI Bank Limited after following the due process of law as provided under the Companies Act, 1956.
3. During the pendency of the writ appeal, an application was filed by the writ petitioner/respondent in the writ appeal for amendment and in place of Industrial Development Bank of India to IDBI Bank Limited has been substituted. The factum of change of name has also been recognized by the Reserve Bank of India, vide order dated 08.09.2008. The change in the name took place on account of the fact that the Life Insurance Company of India has acquired major share holdings in the writ petitioner/respondent Bank and now it is known as IDBI Bank Limited (for short, “the Bank”). The facts further reveal that the Bank at the time when it was completely owned and controlled by the Government of India, in order to establish a staff college, training centre and other buildings for catering to the development of the employees of the petitioner Bank, other Banks as well as foreign banks, was in need of land in the township of Hyderabad and therefore, an application was made to the State Government for allotment of land.
4. The facts of the case further reveal that an application was made for allotment of Acs.100.00 of land. However, Acs.50.00 of land was allotted by the State Government to the Bank vide G.O.Ms.No.895, dated 16.09.1987 and the same reads as under :
“GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT
ALIENATION - Land- Ranga Reddy District - Serilingampally Mandal - Gachibowli village - S.No. 91 to an extent of Ac. 50-00 in favour of the Industrial Development Bank of India, Hyderabad - Orders - Issued.
______________________________________________________________________
Revenue (Q) Department
G.O.Ms.No.895 Dated: 16-9-1987
Read the following:
1. From the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad letter No.BB1/230/87 dt., 20.4.1987.
ORDER :
In the circumstances reported by Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad in the reference 1st read above, Government accord sanction for alienation of land measuring to an extent of Acs. 50-00 (fifty acres) in Sy.No.91 of Gachibowli village, Serilingampally Mandal, Rangareddy District in favour of the Industrial Development Bank of India, Hyderabad for establishment of the International Training Institute of Development Banking on payment of market value at Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) per acre in relaxation of the orders. issued in G.O.Ms.No.1409 Revenue dt. 5-5-1982 and also the orders. issued in G.O.Ms.No.696, Revenue dt.24-6-1985read with G.O.Ms.No.911, revenue dt. 1.8.1985 and also G.O.Ms.No.700, Revenue dt. 20.6.1986.
2. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District is requested to take necessary further action in the matter accordingly.
3. The record of enquiry of Collector, received from the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad is returned herewith to the Collector and he is requested to acknowledge the receipt of the same.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)
T. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT.”
5. The Bank thereafter carried out the construction activities. The another important aspect of the case is that the allotment of the land was not without any consideration. The land was allotted to the Bank on payment of market value. Meaning thereby, the State Government has not done any charity to the Bank and has charged market value prevailing in the year 1987 while allotting Ac.50.00 of land. The Bank has established training centre besides other complex and carried out plantation and a boundary wall has also been constructed in order to secure its pre
The government may resume industrial land for non-utilization by the allottee, with decisions supported by assignment rules and public interest considerations.
The resumption of land under Section 3-B cannot be solely based on observations of land lying fallow; substantial evidence of actual non-use for its intended purpose is required.
Non-utilization of land does not justify resumption if the grantee continues to pursue the purpose for which the land was granted.
Land resumption orders must comply with legal standards of due process, including rights to notification and evidence substantiation, particularly when public authority decisions affect statutory rig....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.