IDPL Has Now Filed a Fresh Petition Challenging the 2008 Resumption Orders
IDPL challenges 2008 government move to resume 891-acre Balanagar land parcel
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Monday issued notices to the state government and the Medchal Malkajgiri (erstwhile Rangareddy) collector and others in a fresh writ petition filed by Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited (IDPL) challenging the 2008 resumption proceedings relating to its 891.38-acre land parcel at Balanagar.
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar was hearing the fresh petition filed by IDPL, challenging the 2008 resumption orders through which the state sought to take back the land parcel. IDPL sought quashing of the resumption order issued in proceedings dated January 27, 2008, as well as the consequential panchanama proceedings dated January 28, 2008. The company contended that the government and the collector lacked jurisdiction to resume the land, particularly in view of the registered conveyance deed executed in 1994, under which IDPL claims to have become the absolute owner of the property.
Narasimha Sharma, additional solicitor-general (ASG), representing the IDPL, argued that the state government could not reclaim the land through executive action after having transferred ownership through a registered conveyance deed. According to ASG Sharma, the resumption order was passed when rehabilitation proceedings concerning the company were pending before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR).
IDPL contended that the action violated the statutory protection available under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and referred to the BIFR's subsequent order dated February 6, 2008, which had directed withdrawal of the Collector's proceedings and restrained coercive action against the company's assets.
IDPL further maintained that it has remained in possession of the entire extent of land despite the purported resumption proceedings.
The court did not pass any interim orders on the merits of the dispute but sought a response from the state authorities before proceeding further. By ordering the matter to be tagged with the existing cases, the court indicated that all issues relating to the ownership, possession and legality of the resumption proceedings would be examined comprehensively.
