O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

‘….Issue a writ order or direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in cancelling the alienation of land of an extent of 3 acres in Sy.No.163/2 and Sy.No.163/7, Putlampalli village of Kadapa Mandal of YSR District in favour of the writ petitioner society, vide the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent No.E1/4019/06 dt 02.10.2013 and the consequential resumption of possession by panchanama dt 21.10.2013 as arbitrary, illegal, offending Article 14 and 300A of the Constitution being in violation of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the respondents to restore the land to the petitioner to enable establishment of old age home vocational training centre for unemployed youth in terms of G.O.Ms.No.146 dt. 12.02.2009 ….

This matter was heard along with W.P.No.30665 of

2013. The petitioner before the Court is a Society registered under the Societies Act, which was allotted land by the Government on payment of market value. After the payment was made, possession was handed over. On the ground that the construction of the buildings was not completed within time, the land was resumed. Questioning the action of the State, the present writ petition is filed.

Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in this case argues that the facts are not in dispute. He points out that the land measuring Ac.1.83 cents in Sy.No.163/2 and Ac.1.17 in Sy.No.163/7 has been assigned to the petitioner-society on payment of value of Rs.2 lakhs per acre. The said sum was paid on 03.06.2009 and physical possession was handed over on 04.06.2009. Thereafter, according to the learned counsel, they made efforts to construct the building and has spent approximately Rs.40 lakhs for the purpose. By proceedings dated 02.10.2013, the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that the land was not utilized and that thereafter proceedings were issued resuming the land. It is submitted that without giving a notice also, the land was taken over by force. Learned senior counsel submits that no notice was issued to the writ petitioner. He also submitted that when the land was assigned under the G.O.Ms.No.146, no period is prescribed for the construction.

As per the learned counsel, the State relies upon Board Standing Order 24, which also does not prescribe any outer limit for construction. He submits that once the conditions of allotment or the Board Standing Orders do not prescribe a period for construction, the State cannot unilaterally come to the conclusion that the conditions have not been fulfilled and cancel the allotment. He also submits that apart from the fact that no show cause notice was issued, the final order was not communicated, but the land was unilaterally re-assumed.

Referring to G.O.Ms.No.607, which is relied on by the State, the learned senior counsel submits that even this document does not confer power on the authorities for taking over possession. Therefore, he submits that this is a fit case for this Court to set aside the orders passed and restore the possession.

In reply to this, the Additional Advocate General argues the matter. According to him, the action taken is valid and correct. He points out that though the land was allotted in 2013, till the date of resumption, no construction was taken up. The land was allotted because of representation made that the petitioner would construct an old age home, working women's hostel, cruch etc., the land was put in possession of the writ petitioner in June 2009, but till the date it was actually taken over, there was no development activity at all in the said area. He also points out that four (4) years is a reasonable period for affecting the construction. He submits that even if time is not fixed, it should still be carried out in a reasonable period. Therefore, he submits that the action taken by the respondents is correct, valid and a