Reserved on : 17.11.2025 Pronounced on : 25.11.2025 Uploaded on : 26.11.2025 APHC010610362023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.31399 of 2023 Between: 1. AMRUTHA VALLEY ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR DUDDUPUDI SRINIVAS, HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT DOOR NO.48-3-36, FLAT NO.104, RATNA TOWERS, SRINAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530016 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE SPL. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (LANDS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, D.NO 22-19, FLOOR II, BLOCK A, JASTHI TOWERS, SAI PURAM COLONY ROAD, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA - 521225 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHEEMUNIPATNAM 5. THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to G.O.MS.No.441 Revenue (Lands.I) Department dt.25.09.2023 issued 2 by the 1st respondent and quash the said G.O.MS.No.441 Revenue (Lands.I) Department dt.25.09.2023 with a consequential direction to the respondents to complete the alienation proceedings in terms of Government orders vide Memo No.21021/60/Assn.II(1)/2017 dt.26.05.2018 read with the 3rd respondent District Collector's Endorsement e-Office File No-REV-ESECOLND(ATGL)/119/2017- .1A(E7)-VSKPCO dt.10.01.2019 and pass such other orders as may by just. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A VEERASWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The writ petitioner in this case submitted an application to the 1st respondent seeking assignment of Ac.0.30 cents of dry land upon payment of the full market value. The grievance is that despite collecting the market value of Rs.51,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-one lakh), the respondents have not yet registered the sale deed. Instead, the petitioner was subsequently directed to pay an additional Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three crore) under Board Standing Order (B.S.O.) – 24, and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment-I) department dated 14.09.2012, subject to usual conditions outlined in G.O. Ms. No. 441 dated 25.09.2023. The said G.O. is under challenge now in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner made an application dated 19.05.2017, to the 1st respondent herein requesting to assign small strip of Government land in to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents of land in Sy.No.6/2 in favour of the petitioner, in terms of BSO 15 Para 10(5). The B.SO. 15 para 10(5) reads as follows: "(5) Isolated plot of land not exceeding 25 cents of wet or 50 cents of dry contiguous to and necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the lands privately owned by adjoining ryots may b assigned to them on payment of full market value though 4 they may not be a landless poor persons. The limits may be raised, if the encroachment is in the middle or in the heart of the lands of the rich land-holder surrounded on all sides by his patta lands." 3. On the said application the 3rd respondent District Collector has called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer and Tahsildar who conducted enquiry, after inspection, submitted a report indicating that the Government land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.6/2 of Bakkannapalem Village stands classified as "Gayalu" and the market value of the lands in the said area as on 01.08.2017 is Rs.1,70,00,000/- per acre. It is further stated in the said proposal that the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, inspected the land in question which is situated about 3 km from Bakkannapalem village, that the full extent of Sy.No.6/2 is Ac.0.30 cents only, classified as Gayalu and the same is covered with bushes existing on the ground and that it is situate in the middle of the applicant's lands and it is not useful for any other purpose and requested to take a decision. And the Joint Sub Registrar-20, Madhurawada vide Lr.No.465/2017 dated 03.11.2017 submitted the market value particulars of the surrounding lands of Bakkannapalem Village as on date is Rs.1,70,00,000/- per acre. 5 4. On the proposal made by the 3rd respondent District Collector, the 1st respondent Government, after careful examination of the matter, vide Memo No.21021/60/Assn.II(1)/2017 dated 26.05.2018, accorded permission to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, to take necessary action for assignment of the said land of an extent of Ac.0.30cents in Sy.No.6/2, Bakkannapalem Village, in favour of petitioner as per BSO 15 Para 10 (5), on payment of market value on conditions that the land shall not be alienated, leased or transferred in any other manner to any other organization or entity and with certain other conditions without prior permission of the Government. 5. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent District Collector by endorsement dated 10.01.2019 informed the petitioner that the Government has accorded permission for assignment of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.6/2 situated in the middle of petitioner's zeroithi lands on payment of market value of an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- under BSO 15 para 10(5) as per the orders of the Government and directed the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- towards the land cost to the Government heads of account by way of challan and submit the original challan for taking further action. 6 6. Accordingly, the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- to the credit of District Treasury Officer, Visakhapatnam, vide challan dated 02.02.2019, SBI, Visakhapatnam, and submitted the original challan to the 3rd respondent vide letter dated 02.02.2019. 7. It is submitted, after remitting the above said sum of Rs.51,00,000/- in compliance with the directions of the District Collector, the petitioner was made to run from pillar to post, evading further steps on one pretext or the other and to his utter dismay and chagrin, the petitioner came to know that the 3rd respondent District Collector raised a query that the petitioner is not a landless poor to assign land in terms of BSO 15 para 10(5) and sought clarification from the Government. The 2nd respondent CCLA, vide reference dated 13.11.2019, clarified the rule position and directed to take further action for assignment of Government land as directed by Government vide Memo dated 26.05.2018. 8. Then the 1st respondent Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.441 Revenue (Lands.I) Department dated 25.09.2023, wherein the Government directed the Spl. Chief Secretary & CCLA and the District Collector to take further necessary action and to fix the 7 market value for the land of an extent of Ac.0.30 cents is Sy.No.6/2 as Rs.3,00,00,000/- by placing reliance on BSO 24 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012, on usual conditions mentioned earlier. 9. The said G.O.Ms.No.441 Revenue (Lands.I) Department dated 25.09.2023 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 10. The petitioner contends that the condition precedent for assigning the land upon payment of market value is that the individual's land must be contiguous with and adjacent to the land owned by the Government or otherwise to say that “in the middle or in the heart of the lands of the rich land-holder surrounded on all sides by his patta” the Government can assign the land under the B.S.O. 15 10(5). Except this bit of Ac.0.30 cents of dry land, the rest of the land belongs to the petitioner. 11. The petitioner further stated that the Government, on an earlier occasion, alienated an extent of Ac.0.21 cents of Government vacant land similarly situated in Sy.No.287 in Palamaneru village and Mandal to the adjacent owner Sri R.K.Srinivasan of Palamaneru in terms of BSO 15(10)(5). As the Government has failed to assign the same, it has filed W.P.No.847 of 2008, seeking a direction to the respondents 8 therein to fix the market value, in terms of CCLA's communication, which was issued on the basis of the reports received from the RDO and Tahsildar. This Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an interim direction dated 29.12.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.1002 of 2008 and when the said interim orders were not implemented, a Contempt Case, i.e., C.C.No.1837 of 2011 was also filed. Eventually, the said Writ Petition was allowed by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 21.12.2015. Subsequently the respondents have alienated the land and enclosed Government Memo No.19887/Assn.V(2)/2015 dated 04.12.2015. 12. In the C.C.No.1837 of 2011, a Division Bench of this Court noted that when no third party has access to Government land, and it is surrounded by the patta land of the petitioner, it should be presumed that there is no reason to the authorities to delay the matter, other than to cause inconvenience to the petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the office of the 3rd respondent District Collector went on raising different untenable queries at different times and dragging on the matter on one pretext or the other, obviously, with the change in incumbency. 9 14. The impugned actions of the respondents, particularly, the 3rd respondent District Collector, contrary to the earlier Government orders dated 26.05.2018 and consequential endorsement dated 10.01.2019, which culminated into the orders of the 1st respondent Government in G.O.MS.No.441 Revnue (Lands.I) Department dated 25.09.2023 are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to the Board Standing Orders and contrary to law and the rules, self contradictory in nature, and in violation of principles of natural justice and are unsustainable. 15. It is contented that the respondents ought to have seen that Board Standing Orders 15 Para 10 (5) and 24 visualise two different situations providing for disposal of Government land. Board Standing Order 24 visualises an element of public purpose for allotting Government land to schools, temples, choultries, roads, hospitals and office building of local bodies or institutions including Gram Panchayats and trade unions as provided thereunder, whereas BSO 15 Para 10(5) provides for assignment of isolated and stray plot of lands, not exceeding Ac.0.25 cents of wetland or Ac.0.50 cents of dry land on payment of market value to the land owner having adjacent or 10 contiguous lands for their convenient enjoyment. Further they need not be landless poor persons. 16. It is further contended that the respondents grossly erred in relying on G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012 and BSO 24. They ought to have seen that the allotment of land to various bodies and various Government Departments came up for consideration and it cropped up that uniform guidelines should be adopted for alienating land to such requisitioning departments and bodies. Government thought it fit to evolve a land allotment policy, which led to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.571 Revenue (Assignment.I) Department dated 14.09.2012, pursuant to which, it evolved Government Land Allotment Policy, as notified under G.O.MS.No.571 dated 14.09.2012. The said uniform land allotment policy under BSO has nothing to do with the allotment of isolated stray bits under BSO 15 Para 10(5). The conduct of the 3rd respondent District Collector as well as the 1st respondent Government in the impugned actions suffers from non-application of mind. 17. It is contended that the respondents ought to have seen that for allotting land in terms of BSO 24, the allottees were categorised into four categories depending upon the requisitioning body and the purpose 11 for which it was requisitioned and that different procedures were also prescribed under the said Government Land Allotment Policy for considering their requisitions at concessional tariffs. Whereas, BSO 15 Para 10(5) provides for fixation of market value for that isolated stray bit, at once. 18. The orders of the 1st respondent Government in arriving at the market value of land in question at Rs.10,00,00,000/- per acre and directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.3.00,00,000/- is unjust and arbitrary. It ought to have seen that on the earlier occasion, on the basis of valuation report submitted by the Joint Sub Registrar-20 Madhurawada, the value of the surrounding lands in and around the small bit of land in question is Rs.1,70,00,000/- per acre, on the basis of which, the petitioner was directed to remit Rs.51,00,000/- which was complied with by the petitioner as early as on 02.02.2019 and the subsequent direction to remit a huge sum of Rs.3,00,00,000/- for a stray and isolated plot of Ac.0.30 cents which cannot be utilised for any purpose even as per the Joint Collector's report is quite arbitrary and unreasonable. After remitting the market value of the land in question as early as in February, 2019, the subsequent steps to be followed are, issuance of formal alienation proceedings. 12 19. Therefore the impugned action of the District Collector and the impugned orders of the Government are self-contradictory. unsustainable, and are liable to be quashed. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.Veeraswamy, argues that the respondents ought to have seen that the doctrine of promissory estoppel squarely applies to the instant case. The 3rd respondent as well as the 1st respondent ought to have seen that their impugned actions amount to unconscionable departure from their earlier orders. The petitioner acted upon the earlier orders of the Government as well as the endorsement of the Collector, raised huge funds and remitted the same, in compliance with the said directions. 21. The impugned action and the impugned proceedings are hit by the doctrine of promissory as is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions and relied on the following precedent: 22. In a case Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited Vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 766, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 19 at P.782 was pleased to hold as follows: "In fact, we must never forget that the doctrine of promissory estoppelis a doctrine whose foundation is that an 13 unconscionable departure by one party from the subject matter of an assumption which may be of fact or law, present or future, and which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of some course of conduct, act or omission, should not be allowed to pass muster." 23. And also quoted on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co., Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 for the above said proposition, which case was the first of its kind on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A.Veeraswamy further argues that “if any statutory rule or statutory notification, two expressions are used - one is general words and the other in special terms - under the rules of interpretation, it has to be understood that the special terms were not meant to be included in the general expression; alternatively, it can be said that were a statute contains both a general provision as well as a specific provision, the latter must prevail for the said proposition the following two judgments quoted: (1) In the case of Santhosh Maize and Industries Limited Vs State of Tamil Nadu and another reported in AIR 2023 SC 2544; (2) J.K Cotton Spinning and 14 Weabing Mills Co. Ltd., Vs State of U.P., reported in AIR 1961 SC 1170. 25. It is further stated that the 3rd respondent has transgressed its limitations by directing his higher ups 2nd respondent as well as the 1st respondent Government by raising queries, contrary to the earlier proceedings issued by them and ignoring the clarifications as made by the 2nd respondent – CCLA. The Collector, instead of adhering to the earlier Government orders, as clarified by the CCLA and completing the allotment in terms of said Government order dated 26.05.2018, had gone to the extent of recommending to the Government, though termed as a request, to re-examine the issue by raising untenable queries. 26. Hence, sated that the 3rd respondent District Collector, for the reasons best known to him, totally deviated from the proposal and recommendations earlier made by the him and by brushing aside the remittance already made pursuant to his directions it indicates lack of bona fides and fair play, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned proceedings and the impugned action of the respondents and G.O.Ms.No.441 dated 25.09.2023 issued by the 1st respondent Government is in utter disregard to the principles 15 of natural justice. Pursuant to decision of the Government, vide Memo No.21021/60/Assn.II(1)/2017 dated 26.05.2018 and the subsequent communication of the District Collector vide endorsement dated 10.01.2019, the petitioner raised a huge sum of Rs.51,00,000/- and remitted the same and on such remittance, a right has been conferred on the petitioner. The only next step would be issuance of a formal alienation proceeding. The impugned G.O.MS.No.441 dt.25.09.2023 which was influenced by the Collector's communications is liable to be quashed in the circumstances of the case. GOVERNMENT PLEADINGS: 27. The learned Government Pleader Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, for the respondents would submit that it was open to the authorities concerned to go for rectification or reassessment proceedings as the writ petitioner is the company registered under the Companies Act and its identity number is U70102AP2007PTC052419, as such the B.S.O. 15 para 10(5) has no application the B.S.O. 24 is only applicable and as per the G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, the Government has framed uniform guidelines under the “Government Land Allotment Policy”. And as per the policy the Government has constituted A.P. Land Management Authority (APLMA) and as per the cabinet decision the lands are to be 16 alienated and requested that the matter may be examined in terms of G.O.MS.No.571 dated 14.09.2012, and it is stated that the market value shall be calculated as per APLARR Act, 2013. As such, the prevailing market value for surrounding survey numbers was arrived at Rs.10,00,00,000/- per acre. The detailed calculation is shown below: Sl. No. Description Amount 1. Rate arrived as per registration statistics Rs.2,00,00,000 per acre 2. Factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in case of Rural Areas 1.25, in case of Urban areas 1.0 Rs.2.00 crores x 1= Rs.2,00,00,000/- per acre 3. Solatium @ 100% Rs.2,00,00,000/- per acre 4. Total (2+3) Rs.4,00,00,000/- per acre 5. 12% Addl. Market value (To be included 12% Addl. Market value on the market value of the land from the date of publication of SIA to the date of Award or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier) Does not arise 6. Grand total amount (4+5) Rs.4,00,00,000/- per acre 28. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the allegations and averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit are not at all true and denied the same as the subject land was neither handed over nor alienated nor assigned to him except for remittance of market value towards land cost @ Rs.51.00 lakhs per acre by the petitioner 17 which is not a statutory process. This respondents never deviated from the recommendations made before and have only followed the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time for disposal of State Government land in favour of any private individual, as a result, the G.O.Ms.No.441, dated 25.09.2023, which was issued by the Government in favour of the petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, and BSO-24 on payment of market value @ towards land cost. The petitioner has already remitted an amount of Rs.51.00 lakhs by way of Challan No.20072987812018. The market value was fixed at Rs.3,00,00,000/- by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.441, Revenue (Assgn.I) Department, dated 25.09.2023. Hence, the balance amount of Rs.49,00,000/- to be remitted by the applicant to the Government head of account. 29. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner is trying to deviate the proposals by relating the subject matter to the orders passed by the High Court in W.P.No.847 of 2008 and C.C.No.1837 of 2011, dated 29.12.2009, which is irrelevant from the present W.P.No.31399 of 2023. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 18 30. The writ petitioner filed reply and stated that the averments in para 7 that if the petitioner's contention is accepted, it would open a pandoras box of private citizens laying claim over any and every piece of Government land is uncharitable and uncalled for. The petitioner is invoking the BSO 15(10)(5) as is existing in the statute book. It is not open to the respondents, to make adverse comments contrary to the letter and spirit of Board Standing Orders. 31. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri A. Veeraswamy and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: 32. At the outset, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that having accepted the money for the land value of Rs.51,00,000/- vide challan dated 02.02.2019, SBI Visakhapatnam now insisting to pay Rs.3,00,00,000/- under B.S.O. 24 and G.O.Ms.No.571 from the Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 14.09.2012 is unlawful. And this demand goes against the doctrine of legitimate expectation and violates B.S.O. 15 paragraph 10(5), while B.S.O. 24 is inapplicable to individuals and only pertains to institutions. B.S.O. 15 paragraph 10(5) is considered a special provision that takes precedence 19 over B.S.O. 24. Therefore, prayed to set aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.441 dated 25.09.2021 and to direct the respondents to register the land in name of the petitioner. 33. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader argues that against the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that B.S.O. 15 para 10(5) is not applicable. Instead, the relevant regulation is B.S.O. 24, as the writ petitioner is not an individual registered under the Companies Act. According to G.O.Ms.No.571, dated 14.09.2012, the Government has established uniform guidelines under the "Government Land Allotment Policy." Under this policy, the A.P. Land Management Authority (APLMA) has been constituted, and based on the cabinet decision, the lands are to be alienated. The Government Pleader requests that the matter may be reviewed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.571 dated 14.09.2012. 34. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Kanumuri Anji Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1961 AP 123, though it is distinguishable according to the facts of the case, the enforceability of the Board Standing Orders was considered, however, it is categorically held that the Standing 20 Orders are merely executive instructions issued for the guidance of officers who are to carry out the policy of the Government and have no statutory basis or force of law. The said principle was reiterated by a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Smt.C Rajamma Vs. The District Collector reported in 1995 (1) ALT 681. 35. There is no dispute with regard to the principle laid down in M/s Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors reported in 1979 (2) SCC 409, the Apex Court in Shabi Construction Company Vs. City and Industrial Development Corporation reported in (1995) 4 SCC 301 as well as in Pune Municipal Corporation Vs Promoters and Builders Association reported in 2004 (10) SCC 796 held as follows: “The true principle of promissory estoppel, therefore, seems to be that where one party has by his words of conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or affect a legal relationship to arise in the future, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made and it is in fact so acted upon by the other party, the promise would be binding on the party making it and he would not be entitled to go back upon it, if it would be inequitable to allow 21 him to do so having regard to the dealings which have taken place between the parties, and this would be so irrespective of whether there is any pre-existing relationship between the parties or not.” 36. After referring to entire law on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel relying on the State of Bihar Vs. Kalyanpur Cement Ltd., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 274, and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1979) 2 SCC 409 concluded that doctrine of promissory estoppel will not give raise to cause of action, but doctrine of legitimate expectation will give raise to cause of action. 37. The Supreme Court in A.P Transco Vs. Sai Renewable Power Pvt.Ltd reported in (2011) (11) SCC referred to use of promissory estoppel as a basis of cause of action and held as follows: "It is a settled canon of law that doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on principle of estoppel but is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice There is no reason why it should be given only a limited application by way of defence. It can also be the basis of a cause of action." In view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court, the petitioner being an allottee expected that the State would fulfill its obligation i.e. completion of alienation process.” 22 38. The Apex Court in the case of The State of U.P. Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and another, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 547 = AIR 1973 SC 2520 held as follows:- “Section 3 of the Government Grants Act declares the unfettered discretion of the Government to impose such conditions and limitations as it thinks fit, no matter what the general law of the land be. The meaning of Section 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act is that the scope of that Act is not limited to affecting the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act only. The Government has unfettered discretion to impose any conditions, limitations, or restrictions in its grants, and the right, privileges and obligations of the grantee would be regulated according to the terms of the grant, notwithstanding any provisions of any statutory or common law.” 39. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that when the market price has been properly determined and the State Government has taken into consideration all the relevant aspects while delivering the G.O.Ms.No.441 dated 25.09.2023 and the market value at the relevant point of time is more than Rs.10,00,00,000/- per acre. And the sale of immovable property is not yet completed as per law. The sale is said to be completed only on the registration and when copied out in the 23 records of the Registration Office as provided in Section 61 of the Registration Act, vide Ram Saran Lall And Others Vs. Mst. Domini Kuer And Others, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1747. 40. The offer and acceptance has culminated in depositing the amount of Rs.51,00,000/- and thus the respondents cannot take a different stand or deviate from the proceedings issued vide memo dated 10.01.2019. 41. Hence, I find that the State is under obligation to implement its decision to alienate the property both on the principle of legitimate expectation and having collected an amount of Rs.51,00,000/- and the State is directed to complete the process of alienation within one month from date of receipt of the order. 42. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. However, no costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 25.11.2025 siva 24 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.31399 of 2023 Date: 25.11.2025 siva