1992 (9) TMI 382 - HC - Indian Laws

State Govt wins as court dismisses petitions, emphasizes statutory compliance & limited legitimate expectation

Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Versus HEH the Nizam VIII of Hyderabad

Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Versus HEH the Nizam VIII of Hyderabad - TMI Issues Involved:1. Interim order and stay of proceedings.2. Exemption under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.3. Government Memo No. 580/UC.II(2)/83-87.4. Public interest and undue hardship.5. Legitimate expectation.6. Procedural improprieties and file notings.7. Competence of the Chief Secretary to hear the matter.8. Possession and vesting of land.9. Discrimination and differential treatment.10. Compliance with Government Orders and statutory provisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Interim Order and Stay of Proceedings:The writ appeal arose from an interim order passed by a learned single judge, directing a stay of all further proceedings pursuant to G.O. Ms. No. 957 Revenue (UC.I) Department. The State appealed against the interim order. The Division Bench directed that the writ appeal be posted along with the writ petition, and thus both matters were heard together.2. Exemption under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:Petitioner No. 1 sought exemption of about 300 acres known as 'Chiran Palace' under Section 20(1) of the Ceiling Act. The application was initially rejected by the Government, and subsequent representations were also rejected. The court directed the Government to consider the application afresh, but the Government again rejected the exemption request. The petitioners challenged this rejection.3. Government Memo No. 580/UC.II(2)/83-87:The petitioners filed writ petitions to quash Government Memo No. 580/UC.II(2)/83-87, which rejected their applications for exemption. The court examined the procedural history and the Government's reasons for rejection, concluding that the rejection was in compliance with the law.4. Public Interest and Undue Hardship:The petitioners argued that exemption should be granted due to public interest and undue hardship. The court noted that the petitioner had not sufficiently raised the issue of public interest before the statutory authority. The court found that the petitioner had other protected lands that could be sold to pay off tax arrears, thus not justifying undue hardship.5. Legitimate Expectation:The petitioners claimed legitimate expectation based on Government correspondence and file notings. The court held that legitimate expectation does not grant an absolute right to a particular decision and is limited to ensuring fair hearing. The petitioner had not complied with the necessary conditions, and thus no legitimate expectation was created.6. Procedural Improprieties and File Notings:The court condemned the petitioner's conduct in obtaining Government files on the sly and using them to support their claim. The court emphasized that file notings by Ministers are not final orders unless communicated and cannot support a claim for legitimate expectation.7. Competence of the Chief Secretary to Hear the Matter:The petitioners questioned the Chief Secretary's competence to hear the matter, alleging bias. The court found that the objection was withdrawn during the hearing before the Chief Secretary and that the Chief Secretary acted within his delegated authority.8. Possession and Vesting of Land:The State Government claimed it had taken possession of the excess land before the interim order was passed. The court noted that procedural requirements under the Ceiling Act were complied with, and the land had vested in the Government.9. Discrimination and Differential Treatment:The petitioners argued that refusal of exemption amounted to differential treatment. The court found no evidence of discrimination, noting that the petitioners had other means to pay off tax arrears and that the Government's decision was based on statutory compliance.10. Compliance with Government Orders and Statutory Provisions:The court examined compliance with G.O.Ms. No. 4271 and G.O.Ms. No. 136, which laid down guidelines for exemption. The petitioners had not complied with these conditions, and their applications were rightly rejected.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions and the writ appeal, allowing the State Government to proceed with the implementation of its decisions. The petitioners were ordered to pay the costs of the respondents. The judgment emphasized compliance with statutory provisions and the limited scope of legitimate expectation in administrative law.