THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.14028 of 1999 ORDER: Initially, this writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not protecting members of the petitioner society from third parties from carrying on their agricultural activity in the abandoned Airfield of Tadepalligudem, Kadakatla, Kondrupolu and Konchenapalli of Tadepalligudem Mandal of West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. Thereafter, the prayer in the writ petition was amended to declare letter of the 7th respondent, dated 13-07-1999, seeking to sell the land admeasuring 653.41 acres of abandoned Airfield of Tadepalligudem, Kadakatla, Kondrupolu and Konchenapalli of Tadepalligudem Mandal of West Godavari District to the State Government for a sale consideration of Rs.1 crore ignoring the preferential claim of the petitioner society as illegal and contrary to the judgments of this Court in W.P.No.7195 of 85 and W.A.No.1445 of 86 and consequently to direct the 7th respondent to sell the said land to the petitioner society for a sum of Rs.1 crore and handover physical possession of the same by removing trespassers. Thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed against respondents 1 to 4, police officials and the writ petition survives only against respondents 5 to 7, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad and the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner Society that it was registered on 20- 12-1965 and it was meant for the benefit of Ex-servicemen including B.Cs/SCs/STs and freedom fighters. The Ministry of Defence, West Godavari District, acquired the land to an extent of 681.35 acres in and around Tadepalligudem of West Godavari District, for war purpose. Coming to the end of the World War-II, the land, which was used for defence purpose mainly as Airfield, was leased by the Government of India in favour of the petitioner vide letter, dated 06-11-1967 for a period of 5 years. It is further stated that the Director General of Defence vide his letter dated 05-10-1978 offered to sell the land to the petitioner Society and the petitioner was called upon to express its willingness for purchase of the said land, but the Society requested to assign the said land at free of cost alone and it was not inclined to purchase the same as it is not possible to purchase the said land. It is further stated that the petitioner Society continued its possession pursuant to the letter of the Defence Estate Officer, Visakhapatnam, dated 03- 01-1984, and in fact, the petitioner Society made efforts to mobilise resources to pay sale consideration of Rs.64,21,000/- and expressed its willingness to purchase the said land vide its letter, dated 07-05-1985. In the meanwhile, the Defence Estate Officer wanted to take physical possession of the said land and, therefore, the petitioner Society filed W.P.No.7195 of 1985, in which, initially interim stay of dispossession was granted and thereafter, the writ petition was dismissed by order, dated 03-10-1986. As against the said order, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1445 of 86 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ appeal, by order, dated 17-12-1986, observed that if the Ministry of Defence have any intention to sell or lease out the property, the preferential claims, if any of the petitioner Society should be considered, in view of the fact that it is alleged to be a Society of Ex-servicemen belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and weaker sections of Society and they are alleged to have been cultivating the land for a long time. It is further stated that after dismissal of the writ appeal, the Ministry of Defence handed over possession of the said land to the Government on 03- 08-1987. Though symbolic possession was given for care and custody of the State Government, the members of the petitioner Society are cultivating the said land. It is further stated that the Government of India changed its policy and vide its letter, dated 11-03-1997 offered to sell the said land in favour of the State Government for sale consideration of Rs.4,03,69,091/-. It is stated that the said action of the Ministry of Defence is contrary to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1445 of 86, dated 17-12-1986. Thereafter, the Government of India modified the decision taken in its letter, dated 11-03-1997 and issued another letter, dated 13-07-1999, which is impugned in the writ petition, stating that the President of India accorded sanction to transfer the said land to the State Government for a consideration of Rs.1 crore as against Rs.4,03,69,091/- subject to certain conditions, which read as follows:- (a) any amount realized by the State Government above Rs.1 crore through sale of this land will be shared with Central Government on 50:50 basis. (b) Preferential claim of the petitioners as referred to in W.A.No.11445 of 86, dated 28-04-1987 and W.A.No.21263 of 98, dated 15-09-1998 and or any other direction of National Human Rights Commission will be complied with to further allotment of the land by the State of A.P. to the ex-servicemen/encroachers and a detailed scheme for allotment giving names of proposed allottee, area to be allotted and rate to be charged will be submitted to the Central Government for prior approval. The formal possession of the land admeasuring 653.41 acres will be handed over on completion of the aforesaid formalities in addition to payment of one crore. In the said letter, it was further stated that physical possession of the land was already handed over to the State Government. The said letter is questioned in this writ petition contending that the Government of India decided to sell the said land for a sum of Rs.1 crore only and the Government of India has failed to give any preferential consideration in favour of the petitioner, who is intending to purchase the said land for a sum of Rs.1 crore. On the other hand, it is the case of the 7th respondent that 555.80 acres of land of Tadepalligudem was leased out to the Society on 28- 03-1968 for a period of five years purely for the purpose of cultivation temporarily but the lease was not on permanent basis. Subsequently, possession of the land was handed over to the State Government authorities i.e., the District Collector, West Godavari District on 03-08-1987 as on custodian responsibility basis. It is admitted that an offer was made to the petitioner ex-servicemen Society for sale of the land but the Society failed to take timely action to accept the offer and pay the cost of the land. Hence, the offer stands withdrawn. It is further stated that as observed by this Court in W.A.No.1445 of 86, the offer was already made to the petitioner Society, but the petitioner Society failed to accept the said offer and, therefore, the petitioner Society was asked to handover the land on 02-01-1985, against which the petitioner Society filed W.P.No.7195 of 85 and it was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1445 of 86 and the same was also dismissed. It is further stated that as the petitioner Society failed to accept the offer, the said land was initially offered to sell in favour of the State Government for sale consideration of Rs.4,03,69,091/- and thereafter, the President of India accorded sanction for transfer of the said land for a sum of Rs.1 crore alone and, therefore, the said action of the Government is not illegal and the petitioner has no vested right to question the same. The 5th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer filed counter and additional counter and stated that some of the persons filed various writ petitions and obtained interim directions, against which, the Government of A.P., filed W.A.No.1719 of 2004 and batch and a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 09-11-2004, allowed writ appeals by setting aside the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the writ petitioners therein have no right to be in occupation of the land and they have no title over the said property. Therefore, there is no question of suffering any irreparable loss or injury and balance of convenience is not in their favour and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in making interim orders absolute. It was further observed that only in the event of Government taking a decision for transfer of the land, the claim of the petitioners therein will have to be considered on preferential basis, but they cannot be allowed to urge or say that till decision is taken, their possession be not disturbed, as such, it was a fit case in which interim order ought to have been vacated and the applications for the interim relief ought to have been dismissed. It is further stated that some of the persons filed W.P.No.16411 of 1988 and a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated 23-09-1996, dismissed the said writ petition by observing as follows:- “From the above, it is clear that the obligation of the Union of India is now undertaken by the State Government to transfer the land to the petitioners on payment of market value by giving them first choice as per the observation of the Division Bench of this Court in case the State Government decides to dispose of the land on payment of market value. Inasmuch as the transfer of the land from the Union of India to the State Government cannot be said to be a transfer over which, the petitioners can claim preference within the meaning of the observation of the Division Bench of this Court made in W.A.Nos.229 to 232 of 1977 and C.R.P.Nos.1075 to 1079, 1082 to 1100, 1307, 1747 and 1308 to 1314 of 1977, dated 04-09-1980, this writ petition is premature and it is accordingly dismissed.” It is further stated that in fact the Society itself was wound up by proceedings in Rc.No.1563/84, dated 19-05-89. Therefore, the Society has no right to purchase the said land. But, whereas the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Society was registered with registration No.E995/65 and in fact, this Society was revived and the elections were also conducted and the Certificate of Election was also issued by the Election Officer, Ex-servicemen Co-operative Collective Framing Society Limited on 19-01-1999 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner society was wound up. On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is one of the Societies and its claim seeking preferential right to purchase the said land was rejected. Moreover, the petitioner was already dispossessed from the land in question. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to purchase the said land. The only questions that arise for consideration are as to whether the petitioner Society is entitled for preferential claim or right to purchase the land in question and whether the letter of the Ministry of Defence, dated 13-07- 1999 is illegal and unsustainable? The issue raised in this writ petition was already considered and decided in W.P.No.16411 of 1988, dated 23-09-1996, filed by some of the persons, wherein it was stated that since the land was transferred by the Defence Ministry, Government of India, in favour of the State Government, the petitioners therein cannot claim preference as against the transfer of the said land by the Government of India in favour of the State Government, as observed in W.A.No.229 of 77 and batch, dated 04-09-1980. In the instant case, the petitioners have not accrued any right over the said land, as the offer made by the Government of India offering to sell the said land in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.64,21,000/- was not accepted or acted upon, and therefore, the Government of India had taken a decision to sell the said land in favour of the State Government for a sum of Rs. Rs.4,03,69,091/- and thereafter, the sale price was reduced for a sum of Rs.1 crore subject to certain conditions. A perusal of the impugned letter goes to show that the said land was sold in favour of the State Government with a condition that if the State Government wants to allot the said land in favour of encroachers or ex- servicemen, then the petitioner will have a preferential claim as observed by this Court in W.A.No.11445 of 86, dated 28-04-1987 and W.A.No.21263 of 98, dated 15-09-1998. If the State Government wants to utilize the said land for public purpose to provide house sites to the houseless persons and the land to the landless poor, it is always open to the State Government to utilize the said land for public purpose and, in those circumstances, the petitioner cannot have a preferential claim or right over the said land. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the State Government is going to allot the said land in favour of some other ex- servicemen or encroachers without considering the claim of the petitioner. As and when the State Government takes a decision for allotment of the said land in favour of ex-servicemen or encroachers, the members of the petitioner are entitled for a preferential claim, but the petitioner or its members cannot claim any preferential right, if the said land is allotted in favour of landless or houseless poor or any other public purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per letter, dated 03- 01-1984, the Ministry of Defence permitted the petitioner to keep physical possession of the land in question till sale proceedings are completed in its favour. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offer is not subsisting or continuing. I am unable to accept the said contention as it was already stated that the issued raised in this writ petition was already considered and decided in W.P.No.16411 of 1988, dated 23-09-1996, at the instance of some other persons. Further, the petitioner is not in possession of the land in question as the possession was already taken over by the Government and in fact, the writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier against the action of the respondents in taking over possession was already dismissed and the writ appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offer is still subsisting and continuing. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 22-08-2010 Prv