APHC010692732012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA I.A.NO.2 OF 2023 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 10755/2012 Between: 1. M/S. INDO FLAME PETRO CHEMCIALS LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY HEMANT SURESHJI MULE HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT 259, SMALL FACTORY AREA, BAGADGANJ, NAGPUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS PRINICPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI 3. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-20 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, order or direction; more particularly one in the nature of writ of "Mandamus" declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing communication dated 24.10.2011 in purporting to give effect to its 2 resolution dated 31.10.2008 and also declaring the resolution of the 1st respondent dated 31.10.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in the breach of principles of natural justice and set aside the said proceedings dated 24.10.2011 and 31.10.2008 and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to forthwith allot the land and deliver the possession in accordance with the allotment order dated 17-11-1995 vide Letter N . LR/EF/SA/2989 for a period of 30 years without insisting for payment of arrears of rent IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 13599 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent not to allot the petitioner's allotted 10 Acres of land situated at Exim Area, Visakapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam allotment order dated 17-11-1995 vide Letter No. LR/EF/SA/2989 vide in favour of third parties pending the disposal of the Writ Petition IA NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP 13600 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to consider for allotment of land in accordance with the allotment order dated 17-11-1995 vide Letter No. LR/EF/SA/2989 infavour of the petitioner without insisting for payment of arrears of rent pending the disposal of the Writ Petition IA NO: 6 OF 2012(WPMP 58877 OF 2012 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 129601 OF 2015 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to grant leave to the respondent to file its counter affidavit and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 3 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the writ affidavit and prayer portion in the writ petition as follows:- a). To add " in issuing the proceedings in Lr No: Estate/IFPC/SA/60 dated 22¬02-2002 and" after the word 1st respondent in line No:1 of para No: 37 of the writ affidavit. b). to add "and the proceedings in Lr No: Estate/IFPC/SA/60 dated 22-02-2002 cancelling the allotment of land to the petitioner company" in 6th line of the prayer portion before the word as illegal and "the proceedings in Lr No: Estate/IFPC/SA/60 dated 22-02-2002" in 8' line before the word consequently in the writ affidavit and writ petition. In the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH B R P SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAM GOPAL RAO 2. THOOM SRINIVAS 3. BETHAPALLI SURYANARAYANA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 4. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI 5. HARINATH N (DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) 6. P SRI RAM The Court made the following 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA I.A.NO.2 OF 2023 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 10755/2012 ORDER: Pending Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2023, seeking permission of this Court to permit the petitioner to amend the prayer in the Writ Affidavit and in the Writ Petition regarding the cancellation order of allotment of land to the petitioner company vide Lr.No.Estate/IFPC/SA/161, dated 22.02.2002. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the resolution and deliberations between the petitioner and the respondents, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is to be considered in the interest of justice. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another..,(2022 SCC Online SC 1128), wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is 5 sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straitjacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case.” 4. It is the discretion of the Court to pass an order by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and limitation may not be barred to meet the ends of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit, wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “4. In reply to para 4, it is submitted that the Petitioner after a lapse of 21 years is now seeking a relief to set-aside cancellation of allotment of land vide LR. No. Estate/IFPC/SA/60, dated 22.02.2002. The Petitioner already amends the nature of the present writ petition. The Petitioner already enjoying a stay in his favour, cannot now amend the pleadings and prayer acting contra to the judgment of Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd and Anr, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128. Once, the amendment petition is allowed, this Respondent will lose its valid defense.” 6. In the said Judgment, the learned counsel for the respondents also relied on paragraph No.70(iv), wherein, the same is extracted hereunder: “(iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless 6 (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.” 7. The learned counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the Judgment rendered by this Court, in W.P.No.19360 of 2006, dated 15.02.2010, wherein, in similar circumstances, who were also allotted some piece of the land on par with the petitioner was considered and held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and accordingly, that Writ Petition was dismissed, thereby, the Judgment rendered in the said Writ Petition was final and the order in that Writ Petition was assailed by way of Writ Appeal and the same is dismissed. In view of the same, the prayer in the interlocutory application and main relief of the petitioner herein cannot be considered. 8. Considering the same, I.A.No.2 of 2023 is dismissed. 9. In view of the Judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.19360 of 2006, dated 15.02.2010, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.07.2025 SCH 7 422 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA I.A.NO.2 OF 2023 IN/AND WRIT PETITION NO: 10755/2012 24.07.2025 SCH