Srikrishna, J.@mdashLeave granted.
2. This group of appeals impugns the common judgment of theDivision Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 8th May, 2001 in WA 1715/1998, WA 1716/1998, WA 1720/1998, CC 114/2001, CC115/2001 & C 116/2001, dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals filed by theState of Andhra Pradesh and quashing a G.O. Ms. No. 38 dated 16.1.2001(Annex P-4) issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.
3. The short facts for disposal of these appeals are as under:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh had taken a policy decision toencourage the functioning of Newspaper Concerns and EducationalInstitutions, which were finding it difficult to find land within the State ataffordable prices. A large tract of 72 acres of vacant land in Survey No. 403corresponding to T.S. No. 2 of Shaikpet Village of Hyderabad District wasowned by the State Government. Out of this land, an extent of 43 acres hadbeen allotted to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for the purpose of development of residential plots, which could be sold andproceeds thereof utilized for the formation of the Necklace road aroundHussain Sagar lake. The possession of the aforesaid land was handed overto HUDA on 22.5.1993. Pursuant to its policy of granting land to membersof the Fourth Estate and educational institutions, the Government resumed10 acres out of the aforesaid 72 acres. 8 acres of land therefrom wasallotted to Newspaper concerns and 2 acres of land was allotted to RootsPublic School. This was done pursuant to the policy of the Governmentand a scheme for encouraging Newspaper Concerts and EducationalInstitutional and to provide incentives to them by assigning lands ataffordable prices. Pursuant to the said scheme by G.O. Ms. No. 199 dated23.2.1994, 2 acres of land was assigned to M/s. Roots Educational SocietyPrivate Limited at the rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. yard and possession thereofwas delivered to the said Society on 17.5.1994. By G.O. Ms. No. 800 dated5.8.1994, 2 acres of land was assigned to M/s DOT Publishers (Publishersof Andhra Jyothi daily Newspaper). Similarly, by another G.O. Ms. No.1096 dated 31.10.1994 (Annex P-1), two acres of land was assigned on M/s.Balaji Administrative Services (P) Ltd.. By G.O. Ms No. 1098 dated31.10.1994 (Annexure P-1), two acres of land was assigned to M/s. MaharashiPublishers Private ltd. and by G.O. Ms. No. 1099 dated 31.10.1994 (AnnexP-1) two acres of land were assigned to M/s. Creative Industries privateLimited.
5. Before assignment of the lands, the State Government had called for areport from the District Collector for fixing the value of the assigned landsand for collecting the price from the assignees. The District Collector ofHyderabad sent a report fixing the value of the land at Rs. 200/- per squ. yard.At that rate, each of the assignees was called upon to deposit Rs. 19,36,000/-.M/s. Balaji Administrative Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Maharishi PublishersPvt. Ltd. and M/s. Creative Industries Pvt. Ltd., each deposited the saidamount of Rs. 19,36,000/- on 29.11.1994. However, for some reason,possession of the land was not delivered to the said three assignees thoughthey had complied with all conditions stipulated in the respectiveGovernment Orders. In glaring contrast, Roots Public School had beendelivered possession even as early as 17.5.1994, although the full price hadnot been paid by it. The said School was given the facility of paying theamount in five equal installments and it was admitted that possession delivered after receipt of the first installment equal to 1/5th of the price.Similarly, in the case of M/s. DOT Publishers, possession was delivered on31.8.1994 without collecting any amount from them, though, according tothe State Government, M/s. DOT Publishers had paid the amount ofRs. 19,36,000/- in two installments of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 14,36,000/-respectively on 24.9.1994 and 26.9.1994. It would thus appear that advancepossession had been given to M/s. DOT Publishers on 31.8.1994 even beforepayment of the first installment. Both Roots Public School and M/s. DOTPublishers are in possession of the respective lands allotted to them and theassignments made in their favour by G.O.Ms. No. 199 dated 23.2.1994 andG.O.Ms. No. 800 dated 5.8.1994 are in fact and have not been cancelled.Apart from these assignments, the State Government had also assigned 1200sq. yards of land to M/s. ABK Publishers running Newspaper "Vaartha" inGaganmahal area, near Indira Park, vide G.O. Ms. No. 1312 dated23.12.1993. This assignment also remained intact and was not cancelled.
6. Based on these facts, M/s Maharshi Publishers (P) Ltd., M/s. CreativeIndustries Private Limited and M/s. Balaji Administrative Services (P) Ltd.filed Writ Petitions Nos. 3384, 3376 and 4637 of 1996 before the High Courtof Andhra Pradesh, alleging hostile discriminatory treatment on the part ofthe State Government amounting to infringement of the right to equalityguaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judgewho heard the writ petitions was satisfied that there was no substance in thecontentions urged by the State authorities and HUDA and that there was clear case of discrimination amounting to infringement of Article 14 wasmade out and that the writ petitioners were entitled to succeed. By hisjudgment dated 1st May, 1998, the learned Single Judge after elaboratelydiscussing the facts and the contentions urged, allowed the three writpetitions and directed the State Government to resume the concerned landsand hand over possession of the respective lands to the three writ petitionerswithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.
7. What transpired thereafter is somewhat strange. The StateGovernment and HUDA filed writ appeals before the Division Bench of theHigh Court challenging the judgment of the Single Judge. Simultaneously,the State Government issued a fresh G.O. Ms. No. 38 dated 16.1.2001, bywhich it purported to cancel G.O. Ms. Nos. 1096, 1098 and 1099 dated31.10.1994 and directed the Collector, Hyderabad to repay the amountdeposited by the three writ petitioners with Bank rate of interest as directedin the said G.O. The three writ petitioners filed Contempt Petitions, beingCC No. 114 of 2001 (by M/s. Creative Industries Pvt. Ltd.) CC NO. 115 of2001 (By M/s. Maharishi Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) and CC Nos. 116 of 2001 (byM/s. Balaji Administrative Services Pvt. Ltd.). The Division Bench heardthe writ appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as HUDAagainst the common judgment of the learned Single Judge along withContempt Petitions and disposed of the same by the common judgmentdated 8th May, 2001, which is impugned in the present appeals.
8. The learned counsel for the Appellant reiterated the contentionswhich were urged before the High Court. We are in agreement with theview taken by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, as approved bythe Division Bench, that on the facts and material placed before the High Court, even in 1996, no developmental activity had been undertaken byHUDA and the stand taken by HUDA that it had spent more thanRs. 1 crore and that the lands could not be resumed by the StateGovernment, was untenable. The High Court also rightly took the view thatthe land originally belonged to the State Government and u/s 20of the A.P. Urban Area (Development) Act, 1975, the State Governmentcould always resume the land by issuing the appropriate GovernmentalOrders. Finally, if at all HUDA was aggrieved by the act of the StateGovernment resuming the lands which had been assigned to the aggrievedpetitioners, the HUDA should have challenged such orders. HUDA nothaving challenged the orders of resumption, the orders of resumptionbecame final as far as HUDA was concerned. The contention that ZoningRegulations were likely to be violated by assigning and deliveringpossession of the land in favour of the writ petitioners, also has nosubstance. As rightly pointed out by the High Court, Zoning Regulationscan always be relaxed, if necessary. In any event, if the other assignees werepermitted to carry on the same business in the same area, it would hardly becontended that the Zoning Regulations were likely to be violated only in the case of original three writ petitioners. The contention that the value ofRs. 200/- per sq. yard is far too less as compared to the market price, is alsoof no avail. The value of the land was fixed on a report made by theCollector after due enquiry and, presumably, reflects the prevalent price inthe year 1994. Merely because the land prices may have risen subsequently,after laying out the plots in the adjoining area and the provisions of amenitiesthe assignments, the assignments could not have been cancelled. Article 14guarantees equal treatment to persons who are equally situated. That thethree writ petitioners were situated equally as M/s. DOT Publishers andRoots Public School, is beyond cavil. The High Court was therefore right intaking the view that there was infringement of Article 14.
9. Another contention urged before the Division Bench of the HighCourt and reiterated before us, is that there were no contracts signed bycomplying with the formalities under Article 299 of the Constitution and therefore the Government was not obliged to honour its commitments. Thiscontention has rightly been repelled by the Division Bench of the HighCourt by pointing out that the sale of the land was not as a result of anycommercial transaction by the State Government, but pursuant to itsdeclared socio-economic policy reflected in the scheme of allotment of landto give incentives to Newspapers Concerns, and Educational Institutions. The High Court rightly held that this was an executive act falling within theprovince of Article 162 and not within the ambit of Article 299 of theConstitution. The material placed on record does clearly indicate that unduefavour was shown to Roots Public School and M/s. DOT Publishers as theassigned lands were handed over to them even without full payment beingmade. In the case of M/s. DOT Publishers, not even a rupee had been paidby them as on the date on which advance possession was given to them. Inthe case of three writ petitioners before the High Court, who, in our opinion,were equally situated, there was hostile discrimination against them in that,despite fully depositing the amount of Rs. 19,36,000/-, possession was nothanded over to them on one pretext or the other and they were driven tofiling writ petitions before the High Court. In the circumstances, we arethe opinion that the judgment of the High Court under appeal holding thatthere was violation of the Fundamental Rights of the writ petitioners underArticle 14 is justified and needs to be upheld.
10. We are also in agreement with the view expressed by the DivisionBench that the issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 38 dated 16.1.2001 (Annex. P-4)despite the judgment of the Single Judge and the pendency of the writappeals filed by the State Government and the HUDA before the High Courtwas contumacious on the part of the State Government. We think that theDivision Bench took a somewhat gracious view of the matter in notinflicting punishment for contempt of Court, but rested content withquashing the offending G.O. Ms. No. 38 dated 16.1.2001 (Annex P-4). Inour view, the appellants appear to have been lightly let off. There is noscope for interference on this count.
11. In the result, we uphold the judgment of the High Court under appealand dismiss the appeals. No costs.
