HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26443 of 2012 Date: 22.9.2014 Between :
Shaik Mahaboob Basha S/o Kaleebee R/o Vuchagunta Palem village, Dagadarthi mandal Nellore district and others … Petitioner and The Govt of A P Rep by its Prl Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26443 of 2012 ORDER:
Petitioners belong to Vuchagunta Palem village, Dagadarthi mandal, Nellore district. Petitioners were land less poor and were assigned land with certain conditions. On the ground that the land assigned to them was not cultivated within two years, said land was resumed by the Government in the year 1995. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited (for short IFFCO) requested State Government to allocate land for the purpose of establishment of ‘Naphtha based Ammonia-Urea plant’ with an annual capacity of 7.26 lakh tonnes. By following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, various extents of land was acquired. The Government land and the land resumed by the Government was allotted to IFFCO on payment of market value in the year 1997. The project did not take off as it faced lot of road blocks and ultimately IFFCO gave up idea of establishment of ‘Naphtha based Ammonia-Urea plant’ since the Government of India was not granting requisite permissions which are mandatory for establishing the said project. Having spent considerable amount and as the project could not be realised, IFFCO decided to go for Kisan Special Economic Zone by utilising the land already acquired. For the purpose of implementing the project, IFFCO has established a special purpose vehicle called ‘IFFCO Kisan SEZ Limited’. This writ petition is instituted by the original assignees contending that IFFCO has not utilised the land which was given to it by following provisions of the Land Acquisition Act i.e., for establishment of ‘Naphtha based Ammonia-Urea plant’, has diverted the land acquired and therefore the land has to be resumed and given back to the original farmers from whom the land was taken.
2. Elaborate submissions are made by learned counsel for petitioners contending that IFFCO is not entitled to utilise the land for any other purpose than the purpose for which it was acquired and once the land is not utilised for the said specific purpose, land should be returned to the original assignees in whose favour land was allotted. In support of his contention that original assignees /owners are entitled to ask to give back the land if the original purpose of allocation of the land was not met and land diverted to some other purpose, he relied on decision of Supreme Court in ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. G.JAYARAMA REDDY AND OTHERS
[1]
.
3. Stand of the petitioners was opposed by the Government as well as by IFFCO. Government contends that land was originally allotted to the petitioners as landless poor and since petitioners have not utilised the land within two years as mandated by the Act, land was resumed much prior to allocation of the said land to IFFCO. Thus, it is the contention of the respondents that by the time land was allotted to IFFCO, assignees were not in possession and enjoyment and land vested in the State Government. In the counter affidavit of respondent no.4 it is stated that as per the revenue records, the land claimed by the petitioners stood allotted to other persons and the names of petitioners are not found. Thus, they are no way concerned with these lands. By paying the market rate IFFCO acquired the said land.
4. Learned counsel for IFFCO Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 4956 of 2012. Said writ petition was instituted by Farmers Association and individual farmers. Some of them claimed to be owners of the land acquired and some were assignees.
5. Insofar as principal issue in this writ petition as to whether land can be converted to any other purpose by IFFCO than for establishing ‘Naptha based Urea/Ammonia Plant’, the decision of this Court in W.P. No. 4956 of 2012 applies in all fours. Very same contentions were raised by petitioners in the said writ petition and on detailed consideration on various aspects raised, the writ petition was dismissed by judgment dated 10.3.2014. The decision in ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners has no application to the facts of the case on hand. As seen from the facts narrated in the writ petition and counter affidavits, it is not in dispute that land assigned was resumed in the year 1995. As the assignees did not comply with the conditions imposed in the assignment patta, the land was resumed and by the time land was allotted to IFFCO land vested in the Government and assignees were no more concerned with the said land. Respondents seriously dispute the contention of the petitioners that land was originally assigned to them. This fact is not denied by petitioners.
6. Even assuming that IFFCO has not utilised the land for the specific purpose for which it was acquired and land should be resumed, the land cannot be given back to the assignees as assignees were not holding the status of assignment by the time land was allotted to IFFCO. Further more, total extent of land claimed by the petitioners is only Ac.14.00 whereas entire extent of land under acquisition was Ac.2773.23 cents.
7. As assignees were not in possession and enjoyment of the land when the land was allotted to IFFCO and as contended by respondents, petitioners were not the original assignees, petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the said allotment or subsequent utilisation of the land after obtaining appropriate permissions from the competent authorities for the purpose of establishment of ‘Kisan SEZ.
8. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any stand dismissed.
P NAVEEN RAO,J DATE:22.9.2014 TVK HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26443 of 2012 Date: 22.9.2014
[1] (2011) 10 SCC 608