Andhra Pradesh HC Dismisses McDowell's Writ Appeals Over 4.31 Hectares at Waltair Uplands, Imposes Rs 50,000 Cost Each

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed five writ appeals by M/s McDowell & Co. Ltd. over surplus land at Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam, finding decades of litigation amounted to abuse of process.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, on 23 June 2026 dismissed all five writ appeals filed by M/s McDowell & Co. Ltd. and one filed by Sri C. Hanumantha Rao against a common order of the learned Single Bench dated 15 December 2023. The appeals concerned 4.3101 hectares of land at Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam, originally declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The Division Bench found that McDowell had participated in every stage of proceedings over several decades without ever raising the key objections it pressed in these appeals, and that its conduct amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law. Costs of Rs 50,000 each were imposed on all five appeals, payable to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within sixty days.

The Land, the Company, and the Exemption That Was Withdrawn

M/s Hindustan Polymers Limited, Visakhapatnam, was declared a surplus landholder under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in respect of 76.9585 hectares within Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration, as published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on 24 November 1981. The competent authority had, by order dated 5 November 1981 under Section 9 of the Act, allowed an exemption of 24.44 hectares and declared the remaining 76.9585 hectares surplus. A notification for acquisition under Section 10(1) followed.

Hindustan Polymers Limited was subsequently amalgamated with M/s McDowell & Co. Ltd. pursuant to orders of the High Court of Bombay in Company Petition No. 236 of 1981, dated 22 February 1982, and the Madras High Court in Company Petition No. 43 of 1981, dated 31 March 1982. The scheme of amalgamation took effect from 1 April 1978, transferring all assets and liabilities of Hindustan Polymers into McDowell.

By G.O.Ms.No.1033 dated 8 October 1992, the Government exempted 67.2165 hectares under Section 20(1)(a) of the Act. Of this, 4.3101 hectares at Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam, were exempted specifically for constructing residential accommodation for officers of Hindustan Polymers Division and related entities. The exemption came with conditions, and the controversy in the present case centred entirely on this 4.3101 hectares parcel.

The construction required under the exemption conditions was never carried out. A show-cause notice was issued to Hindustan Polymers Limited as to why the exemption should not be withdrawn. When an extension until 1996 was granted by memo dated 25 November 1994, the condition still remained unfulfilled. A fresh show-cause notice followed on 19 July 1996.

Instead of complying, the company submitted a representation on 29 October 1996 seeking permission to convert the Waltair Uplands plot into a holiday resort. By G.O. dated 26 July 1997, the Government rejected that request and withdrew the exemption granted by G.O.Ms.No.1033. A Section 10(1) notification was issued on 9 October 1997, a declaration under Section 10(3) was published on 24 October 1997, and a Section 10(5) notice for handing over possession was issued on 9 December 1997. An order under Section 10(6) authorising the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take possession was passed on 16 January 1998. Possession was taken on the same day by Panchanama.

Earlier Rounds of Litigation and the Finality That Was Reached

McDowell filed Writ Petition No. 33741 of 1998 challenging the withdrawal order G.O.Ms.No.630 dated 26 July 1997, and also filed Writ Petition Nos. 23773 of 1998 and 9481 of 1999 raising connected grievances. A learned Single Bench allowed Writ Petition No. 33741 of 1998 by order dated 8 September 2000, holding that the Government had not assigned reasons for cancelling the exemption as required under Section 20(2) of the Act, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

The State filed writ appeals. A Division Bench of the High Court, by order dated 16 November 2001 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1282, 1283 and 1284 of 2000, reversed the Single Bench. It held that the conditions of the exemption had admittedly not been complied with, that McDowell's new proposal for a holiday resort was an entirely fresh proposal the State was not obliged to accept, and that once conditions of exemption were violated, the State was entitled to withdraw the exemption. The Division Bench further observed that the lands are situated in the heart of Visakhapatnam and are worth crores of rupees.

McDowell's writ appeals against the closure of the other two writ petitions were dismissed by the same Division Bench on 16 November 2001. A Special Leave Petition challenging the Division Bench order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 3 April 2002. The withdrawal order and all consequential proceedings thus attained finality.

Despite this, McDowell filed a declaration under Section 21 of the Act on 3 February 2004 seeking to use the land for construction of dwelling houses. The application was rejected on 5 August 2004. A writ petition and writ appeal challenging that rejection were both dismissed, the appeal on 3 November 2004, with liberty to approach under Section 33 of the Act. The Section 33 appeal was dismissed on 4 October 2005. In the meantime, the Government allotted the 4.3101 hectares to A.P.I.I.C. for development of an IT Park by G.O.Ms.No.829 dated 19 October 2004, and A.P.I.I.C. took possession on 20 October 2004.

A writ petition challenging the interim order in Writ Petition No. 2690 of 2007 led to Writ Appeal No. 646 of 2007, which was dismissed on 21 August 2007 with a specific finding that the appeal appeared to be part of a strategy to frustrate a surplus declaration made more than 35 years ago. A further writ appeal, W.A.No.915 of 2005, was dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000 and a finding that successive petitions and appeals amounted to a clear abuse of process of law.

The Arguments Pressed in the Present Writ Appeals

In the present round, McDowell raised two principal contentions before the Division Bench.

First, it argued that all proceedings initiated under the Act were addressed to M/s Hindustan Polymers Limited, a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation in 1982. Any order against a non-existent entity, it was submitted, is null and void ab initio. Counsel pointed to a legal opinion by the State's own Law Department, rendered pursuant to an interim order in Writ Petition No. 21235 of 2009, which noted that notices had been issued to Hindustan Polymers Limited and not to McDowell and that orders passed without notice to the concerned party may become void ab initio.

Second, McDowell argued it was entitled to the benefit of Section 3 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, because an exemption under Section 20(1) of the principal Act had been granted in its favour. The Repeal Act was adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh with effect from 27 March 2008.

In Writ Appeal No. 666 of 2024, Sri C. Hanumantha Rao, appearing in person, challenged the refusal by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam, to permit him to peruse the entire file in C.C. No. 6698 of 1976 and to furnish copies under the Right to Information Act on the ground that it would prejudice the State's contentions.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

On the notice argument, the Chief Justice's judgment held the plea to be devoid of merit. By G.O.Ms.No.567 dated 5 July 1997, passed on an application made by L.G. Chemicals Limited seeking an amendment, the Government had expressly directed that “Hindustan Polymers would be read as Hindustan Polymers, a division of McDowell & Company Limited.” The declarant company's name had thus been formally updated in the government records before the Section 10(1) notification of October 1997.

More fundamentally, the bench observed that McDowell itself had filed Writ Petition Nos. 33741 of 1998, 23773 of 1998 and 9481 of 1999 in its own name, had filed writ appeals, had pursued a Special Leave Petition, had filed Section 21 and Section 33 applications, and had filed further writ petitions thereafter — all challenging the very proceedings it now claimed were addressed to a non-existent entity. The plea had never been raised at any earlier stage of this prolonged litigation. In the bench's view, raising it at this late stage was entirely impermissible.

The earlier Division Bench order dated 16 November 2001, which attained finality with the dismissal of the Supreme Court Special Leave Petition, had already recorded that McDowell had admittedly not complied with the conditions of the exemption and had made a fresh proposal for a holiday resort which the State was not obliged to accept. That finding bound the present proceedings.

On the Repeal Act argument, the bench held that Section 3(1)(a) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 protects the vesting of vacant land under Section 10(3) where possession has actually been taken over by the State Government. Possession of the 4.3101 hectares was taken by the Mandal Revenue Inspector by Panchanama on 16 January 1998, and the land was allotted to A.P.I.I.C. on 19 October 2004 with possession handed over on 20 October 2004. The bench held that there was accordingly no question of any benefit accruing to the petitioner under Section 3 of the Repeal Act.

The Supreme Court judgments relied upon by McDowell's counsel — including Wazir Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1954) 1 SCC 787, Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 39, Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596, Delhi AIR Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of UP (2011) 9 SCC 354, Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare 2021 SCC Online 3422, and Dalsukhbhai Bachubhai Satasia v. State of Gujarat Civil Appeal No. 6130 of 2016 — were found to be clearly misplaced in the factual matrix of this case.

Abuse of Process and Costs

The Division Bench took note of the earlier finding in W.A.No.915 of 2005, where a Division Bench had already recorded that McDowell, by filing successive petitions and appeals, had “defeated law successfully for a number of years.” That writ appeal had itself been dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000.

The present bench held that the matter had attained finality with the dismissal of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 22972–22976 of 2001 by the Supreme Court on 14 January 2002 and the dismissal of Review Petition (Civil) Nos. 288–292 of 2002 on 3 April 2002. The notice argument, pressed as a “last-ditch effort,” had never been raised despite McDowell actively pursuing every earlier stage of the litigation in its own capacity. The bench held that this conduct amounted to a clear abuse of the process of law.

Order

All five writ appeals — Writ Appeal Nos. 618, 609, 627, 628 and 666 of 2024 — were dismissed as devoid of merit with costs of Rs 50,000 each. The costs are to be deposited in the account of the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within sixty days of the order. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.