North Coastal Mega Food Park Private Limited vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the original petitioner was issued only allotment proceedings subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. Due to the violation of these conditions, particularly the failure to deposit the land cost even after 22 months and repeated directions, the original petitioner did not acquire vested rights over the subject property. The Court found the original petitioner's claim to retain the land indefinitely, ignoring their lapses, to be contrary to the settled proposition of law that a party violating the terms of an MoU cannot claim rights arising from it. Therefore, the contentions of the original petitioner (now respondents in the IA) were deemed untenable and unsustainable. Conversely, the implead petitioner was considered an interested party who were alienated part of the land for constructing quarters for persons engaged in emergency services for the Bhogapuram International Airport, an act of public interest. Consequently, the implead petitioner was deemed a proper and necessary party for the adjudication of the issues in the Writ Petition. The Court ordered IA.No.1 of 2024 to be allowed and directed the Registry to make necessary amendments.

Facts

The implead petitioner sought to be impleaded in Writ Petition No. 4201 of 2021. They claimed to have been alienated Ac.19.97 cents of government land out of Ac.21.00 cents in Sy.No.25, now split into new survey numbers, situated at Basavapalem Village. This land forms part of a larger parcel of Ac.70.18 cents alienated in favour of APIIC, which was then permitted to allot it to the original petitioner for a Mega Food Park. The original petitioner was required to deposit Rs.7,31,46,900/- as fixed by the District Collector, but failed to do so for 22 months, citing lack of new policy and financial assistance. Consequently, their claim was rejected by the respondents. The implead petitioner argued their subsequent allotment was valid and they were a necessary party. The original petitioner (now respondents in the IA) contended that the implead petitioner's allotment violated this Court's interim orders and amounted to contempt, causing wrongful loss.

Key Issues

1. Whether the implead petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the Writ Petition, considering their subsequent allotment of a portion of the land. Petitioner's argument: The implead petitioner argued they were alienated land vide G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 15.03.2024, and this allotment is valid as the original petitioner failed to fulfill the conditions of their earlier allotment. Therefore, they have a vested interest and are a necessary party. Revenue/State's argument: The original petitioner (now respondents in the IA) argued that the implead petitioner has not come with clean hands, as their allotment violates the interim orders of this Court passed in IA No.1 of 2021 dated 23.02.2021. They contended that any alienation to the implead petitioner is an attempt to cause wrongful loss to the original petitioner, and thus the IA should be rejected. 2. Whether the original petitioner's failure to deposit the land cost within the stipulated period extinguished their rights, making the subsequent allotment to the implead petitioner valid. Petitioner's argument: (Implicit in their claim for impleadment) The original petitioner's failure to deposit the amount meant they had no vested right, thus validating the subsequent allotment. Revenue/State's argument: (Implicit in their opposition to impleadment) The original petitioner's failure to deposit the amount, despite repeated requests and delays, was a violation of the allotment terms, and any subsequent allotment is an attempt to cause wrongful loss.