THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32141 of 2014 Dated : 28.10.2014 Between:
M/s. Ishwariya Orchards and Plantations, Rep., by its Managing Partner, MR. Kishanlal, S/o.Mohanlal, Hindu, Aged about 56 yrs, R/o.12B, Anna Nagar Street, Manavala Nagar, Tiruvallur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, Tamilnadu State .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Land Acquisition), Secretariat, Hyderabad & 6 others .. Respondents This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.32141 of 2014 ORDER :
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.844 in Survey No.1 and Acs.53.93 in Survey No.4 to 14 of Madanapalem Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. In so far as land to an extent of Ac.53.93 in Survey Nos.4 to 14 of Madanapalem Village, was acquired by the State Government by following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. With reference to Ac.844-00 of land in Survey No.1, there were some disputes which compelled the petitioner to institute O.S.No.22 of 1998 on the file of the Family Court-cum-V Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Ac.844-00 of land is shown as Schedule ‘B’ property in the said suit. The said suit was partly decreed and decree was granted in favour of the petitioner to an extent of Ac.193-00. Aggrieved by not granting relief to the remaining extent of land i.e., Ac.651-00, the petitioner filed A.S.No.553 of 2007 which is pending for consideration of this Court. In A.S.M.P.No.2170 of 2007 in A.S.No.553 of 2007, this Court granted interim injunction initially for a limited period and subsequently extended until further orders. The said injunction is in operation.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that recently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, decided to entrust the very same extent of land in favour of Hero Moto Corp Limited, for establishing their unit. According to the understanding of the petitioner, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the said company and the Government through Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., (for short the ‘APIIC’). Surprised by this development, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.09.2014 informing the authorities that concerning the same property A.S.No.553 of 2007 is pending before this Court and an injunction order is in operation and during its subsistence, the land cannot be entrusted to any other person. As there is no response, on 16.10.2014 a notice was issued. There is no response to the said notice also. Hence this writ petition.
3. The averments would disclose that as of now no order is passed by the Government nor a decision is taken by the APIIC entrusting the land which the petitioner claims to be his own to Hero Moto Corp Limited (7th respondent) and the said decision is in violation of the injunction order granted by this Court. The petitioner only relies on daily newspaper reports which seem to have covered news of State Government entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 7th respondent for purchase of land to establish a unit of 7th respondent.
4. The principle of law is well settled on scope of judicial review against administrative action/decisions. To test the validity of an action of Government or its instrument in exercise of power of judicial review, there must be a decision by the competent authority and said decision offends rights of a person. As of now, no decision is taken and therefore no right of the petitioner is violated. Thus there is no cause of action to the petitioner to institute this writ petition praying to grant writ of mandamus declaring allotment of land admeasuring Ac.655.00 in Survey No.1 of Madanapalem Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District.
5. Further more, as contended by the learned Senior counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy, for the petitioner, this Court passed an order of injunction in A.S.M.P.No.2170 of 2007 on 30.10.2007 and the said injunction order operates till date. Thus, the interests of the petitioner are sufficiently protected on the property he claims as his own. The petitioner can complain of a decision as arbitrarily made, illegal, without jurisdiction or competence only when a decision is taken by the concerned authority dealing with the property in violation of order of injunction granted by this Court. As averred, on the land in Survey No.1 of Madanapalem Village, the petitioner has an effective remedy since A.S.No.533 of 2007 is pending on the file of this Court. For the reasons aforesaid the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedies as and when the cause of action arises. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed.
P.NAVEEN RAO,J 28th October, 2014 Rds