SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Telangana) 381

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, T. AMARNATH GOUD, JJ.
ITC Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.A. No. 38358 of 2018
Decided On : 29-01-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. SRIDHAR

Headnote:

Unjust Enrichment - Refund of Amount - Sec. 53 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 - [FACT OF THE CASE] ITC Limited sought refund of Rs.4.5 Crores deposited with APIIC for land allotment, which was rejected by the Forest Advisory Committee. Post bifurcation, the lands proposed for allotment fell in Telangana and compensatory afforestation land in Andhra Pradesh. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court found the retention of the amount by respondents as unjust enrichment and ordered refund with interest. [ISSUES] Refund liability and apportionment between APIIC and TSIIC. [RATIO DECIDENDI] Sec. 53 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 mandates apportionment of assets and liabilities between successor undertakings. [FINAL DECISION] APIIC and TSIIC to refund the amount in the ratio of 58.32 : 41.68 with interest at 12% per annum. Costs awarded to the petitioner. [MAIN LEGAL POINT] Unjust enrichment and apportionment of assets and liabilities under Sec. 53 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014. [CATEGORY] Civil Law [SUB-CATEGORY] Contract Law

ORDER :

M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J.

ITC Limited, the petitioner herein, has filed this Writ Petition seeking Writ of Mandamus for refund of the amount of Rs.4.5 Crores to it from the respondents, which amount had been deposited by it with the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) through cheque No.066843 dt.29.05.2007 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, for allotment of land towards expansion project undertaken by it in Sarapaka Village near Bhadrachalam in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of paper boards and specialty papers apart from other businesses and has a manufacturing facility at Sarapaka Village near Bhadrachalam established during 1970s in the then State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner wanted to expand the existing facility and requested the then Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2005 to allot land for expansion in the said village.

3. Under the said proposal, the APIIC had furnished a proposal for diversion of 445 hectares of forest land in Kistasagar Reserved Forest of Paloncha Forest Division in Khammam District to the petitioner and an extent of 1576.80 Acres in Peddannavaripalli, Talupula Mandal of Ananthapur District was also identified by APIIC for compensatory afforestation.

4. The petitioner’s request was agreed to by the composite State of Andhra Pradesh and land to an extent of 1500 Acres was earmarked in said village by the APIIC which was functioning as a Nodal Agency for industrial development in the unified State of Andhra Pradesh.

5. As per the scheme proposed, the identified land would be handed over to APIIC by the Forest Department which would in turn hand it over to the petitioner after getting approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forest of the Union of India.

6. Since the land proposed to be allotted in Sarapaka village was a degraded forest land, the petitioner and the Government Agencies including APIIC identified 1500 Acres of Government land in Ananthapur District for compensatory afforestation. The petitioner was required to maintain compensatory afforestation in this land.

7. After identification of the land in Khammam District, the then Zonal Office of the APIIC at Warangal issued a letter dt.02.05.2007 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.4.5 Crores before 31.05.2007 and the petitioner deposited the same vide letter dt.31.05.2007 along with a cheque drawn on Standard Chartered Bank bearing No.066843 dt.29.05.2007. The cheque was encashed by the APIIC.

8. The proposal to transfer land to the petitioner was ultimately rejected by the Forest Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, New Delhi in its meeting dt.21-22 December, 2012. However, notwithstanding the same, the money paid by the petitioner was not refunded to the petitioner by the then Government of Andhra Pradesh/APIIC.

9. In the meantime, the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated under A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short, ‘the Act’) with effect from 02.06.2014 into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.

10. As a consequence thereof, the lands proposed for diversion for allotment to the petitioner for expansion of it’s unit in Sarapaka village fell in the new State of Telangana; and the land proposed for compensatory afforestation in Ananthapur District remained in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.

11. Consequent to the bifurcation of the erstwhile composite State of Andhra Pradesh, the APIIC, which was acting as a Nodal Agency for the combined State of Andhra Pradesh prior to the Act, came to be bifurcated into Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (TSIIC) (5th respondent) and APIIC (4th respondent).

12. Post bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh also, the Forest Advisory Committee again discussed the proposal of petitioner in its meeting held on 31.12.2015 and rejected the proposal vide File No.8-19/2011-FC dt.31.12.2015.

13. No fres

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top