Government land cannot be allocated free of cost to private entities without adherence to statutory procedures and assessments of public purpose under applicable laws.

COMMON ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Lakshman

The present public interest litigations (hereinafter ‘PILs’) are filed challenging three government orders viz., G.O. Ms. No. 126 dated 26.12.2021 whereby the Government of Telangana (Respondent No. 1) allotted land bearing Plot No. 27 admeasuring Ac. 3.70 in Sy. No. 83/1, Raidurg village, Sherilingampally mandal, R.R. District (hereinafter ‘subject land’) in favour of the International Arbitration & Mediation Centre (hereinafter ‘IAMC’); G.O. Ms. No. 76 dated 12.11.2021 and G.O. Ms. No. 365 dated 16.07.2022 whereby Respondent No. 1 granted financial aid of Rs. 3 crores to the IAMC; and G.O. Ms. No. 6 dated 17.03.2022 whereby Respondent No. 1 directed all its departments and public sector undertakings to refer all its disputes above Rs. 03 crores to the IAMC for arbitration.

2. Heard Mr. Koti Raghuntha Rao, party-in-person in W.P. (PIL) No. 76 of 2023 and Mr. Satyam Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Ms. K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. (PIL) No. 79 of 2023. Also, heard Mr. A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Advocate General appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in both the PILs and Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Mallipedi Abhinay Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 in W.P. (PIL) No. 76 of 2023. Mr. Vikram Pooserla, learned senior counsel representing Mr. Mallipedi Abhinay Reddy, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 appeared in W.P. (PIL) No. 79 of 2023. Mr. Avinash Desai, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 4 appeared in W.P. (PIL) No. 76 of 2023. Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel representing Mrs. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for Respondent No. 5 in W.P. (PIL) No. 76 of 2023 was also heard.

3.CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS: -

i. The entire case of the Petitioners is that the Government by issuing the impugned G.O.s has abused its powers and caused significant financial loss to the public exchequer. In relation to G.O. Ms. No. 126 dated 26.12.2021, they contended that the subject land being very valuable could not have been allotted to the IAMC free of cost. According to them, the value of the subject land runs into hundreds of crores. They contended that Sections 19 & 20 of the Telangana Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 provide that government land can only be disposed by way of sale or exchange or lease or public auction. According to them, there is no provision permitting the government to allot land free of cost. Therefore, allotment of land to the IAMC is arbitrary. They relied on Common Cause, A Registered Society (Petrol pumps matter) v. Union of India, [1(1996) 6 SCC 530.], Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K, [2(1980) 4 SCC 1.], Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B. , [3(1987) 2 SCC 295.], Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. , [4(2011) 5 SCC 29.], and State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty , [5(2022) 16 SCC 703.], to contend that state largesse cannot be arbitrarily distributed and discretionary free allotment of land is unsustainable.

ii. They contended that IAMC is not a statutory body.

According to them, it is a private body making profits and also enjoying grant-in-aid from the government. Support of such private institutions, according to the Petitioners, is illegal and is not supported by any law.

iii. In relation to G.O. Ms. No. 365 dated 16.07.2022 granting