2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 19575
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA WRIT PETITION No.5731 of 2009
ORDER:
(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
None for the petitioner.
Mr. Muralidhar Reddy Katram, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents No.1 to 3, 5 and 6.
Mr. D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. In this writ petition filed as a pro bono publico the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.02.2009 issued by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh by which the land measuring Acs.16.00 in Survey No.16/P situated at Gandipet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”) has been allotted in favour of the respondent No.4, namely Institute of Health Systems, on payment of Rs.10.00 lakhs per acre for setting up a World Class College of Public Health and Campus. The said order is challenged on the ground that the same is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and is unconstitutional and has been issued in violation of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Land Revenue Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1975 Rules”). In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.
3. The Institute of Health Systems (hereinafter referred to as “the IHS”) was founded on 05.12.1990 as a charitable scientific institution to develop health systems research and public health capacity development in India. The IHS submitted an application on 24.06.1998 to the Collector, Hyderabad, for allotment of surplus land in Ameerpet Mandal. The IHS was informed sometime in December, 2003, that the aforesaid land is not available for allotment. Thereafter, the IHS again submitted application on 24.07.2004 seeking allotment of land measuring Acs.8.00 in Survey No.136/Part in Gachibowli Village. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration examined the application submitted by the IHS and recommended for allotment of land.
4. However, despite recommendation made in favour of the IHS, the aforesaid land was allotted to three different hospitals. Thereafter, the Board Members of the IHS met the Chief Minister on 05.07.2008 and requested for allotment of an alternative land on concessional rate. By a communication dated 27.10.2008, the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, recommended allotment of the subject land to the IHS and it was stated that the market value of the land in the said year was Rs.29.05 lakhs per acre. The recommendation made by the Collector was placed for approval before the Empowered Committee constituted by the State Government for alienation of the land. The Empowered Committee on 24.01.2009 recommended allotment of the subject land in favour of the IHS. The recommendation of the Empowered Committee was placed for consideration before the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 13.02.2009 approved the proposal for alienation of the subject land to the IHS. The Council of Ministers in the aforesaid meeting, taking into account the object for which the IHS was constituted, decided that the land be allotted at the concessional rate of Rs.10.00 lakhs per acre to the IHS. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 21.02.2009, was issued by which the IHS was allotted the subject land. The aforesaid order has been assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.
5. A Bench of this Court, while entertaining the writ petition, has granted an interim order on 19.03.2009 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the subject land.
6. Heard learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the State and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.4 and have perused the record.
7. The allotment made in favour of the IHS has been assailed, inter alia, on the ground that the same is in violation of the 1975 Rules and the same is arbitrary, unjust, malafide and capricious. It has been further averred in the writ petition that the mark