IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD (FOR THE STATE

OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

W.P No. 10234 of 2021

K. Mohana Rao, S/o Venkata Subbaiah,

Aged about 53 years, R/o Villa No: 8,
Srusti Villas, Iskan City,
Opp. Street of Hanuman Statute, Nellore,
SPSR Nellore District.
...Petitioner
AND

1. The Salt Commissioner

Lavan Bhavan, 2-A, Lavan Marg
Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur – 302 004

2. The Deputy Salt Commissioner, 26, Haddows Road,

Shastri Bhawan, Chennai-600006.

3. The Assistant Salt Commissioner, Pithapuram Road,

Kakinada, East Godawari District.

4. The Superintendent of Salt, 26, Haddows Road

Shastri Bhawan, Chennai – 600 006.

5. The Salt Factory Officer, Iskapalli,

I/C Krishnapatnam Salt factory,
SPSR Nellore District.

6. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati.
The Tahsildar,
Muthukur Mandal,
SPSR Nellore District.

7. The District Collector,

SPSR Nellore District.

8. The Adani Krishnapatnam Port Limited,

Krishnapatnam Village, Muthukur Mandal,
Nellore District, rep. by its Managing Director.

9. The Union of India, rep. by its Under Secretary,

Ministry of Industry and commerce, New Delhi.

...Respondents
 2

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF

RESPONDENT No. 1 to 5& 9 (SALT DEPARTMENT)

I, Shri. C. Raghu S/o Late Shri. S. Chakrapani aged about 57 years,

working as Deputy Salt Commissioner, Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and

sincerely state as follows:

1. I submit that I am the Deputy Salt Commissioner, In-charge of

the Office of the Deputy Salt Commissioner, Chennai and as such I am

well acquainted with the facts of the case from the records available in the

office. I am filing this Counter affidavit on behalf of all the respondent

Nos.1 to 5 & 9 herein as I am duly authorized to do so.

2. I have read the contents of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in

support of the above writ petition and deny all the material allegations and

averments made there under except those that are specifically admitted

hereunder and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

3. Before adverting to various allegations made by the writ petitioner, it

is just and necessary to bring the following few facts for kind

consideration of this Hon’ble Court, for better appreciation of contentions

put forth by this respondent and for effective adjudication of issues

between the parties:

4. In reply to para 2 of the petitioner affidavit filed in above of writ petition, it

is submitted that an extent of 37.770 acres was assigned to that

petitioner viz., Shri K. Mohana Rao vide this office tender acceptance

order under letter C.No.37(12)P/70/ VOL.V/7315-19 Dated 11.05.2001

(R-1) for a period of 20 years from 25-05-21 to 24.05.2021 under RS

 3

NO.693 of Krishnapatnam Salt Factory Muthukur Mandal, Nellore

district, Andhra Pradesh, subject to certain terms and conditions

stipulated in the lease deed agreement duly executed and registered as

document no 719/2001 dated 5.11.2001 (R-2) at S.R.O Muthukur at

Nellore district by the petitioner. As the lease period granted to the

petitioner expired on 24.05.2021 the petitioner as a lessee should leave

the demised premises on his own as per the lease deed condition No. 3 for

which he is not be entitled to any compensation for any expenditure that

he may have in respect of works or to any damages if the area is resumed.

Hence, our field officer viz., the Salt Factory Officer, Krishnapatnam, 5 th

Respondent had been advised to take over the possession of land on

25.05.21 F/N after observing formalities vide this letter of even number

3329-3330 dated 1-04-2021 (R-3). But the petitioner instead of complying

the lease deed conditions, has filed this writ petition and obtained an

interim order in the respective High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

vide order dated 20th May 2021 (R-4) and keeping the possession beyond

the expiry of the lease period that is beyond 24.05.2021 till date. The

Petitioner’s land is a leased property of Salt Commissioners organization,

Govt. of India and was being used for salt related activities and as a rule,

the said shall not be transferred to any agency but the above land was

considered for transfer to 6th respondent viz., the Government of Andhra

Pradesh for public purpose i.e. for development of Krishnapatnam Port

Limited as an exceptional case as determined by the Government of India

as per para 2 (i) and (ii) of the Internal Policy Guidelines for transfer of

salt pan land vide letter F No. 04011/10/2010-salt dated 24-01-2012 (R-

5) of Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the then Department of

Industrial Policy and Promotion. The transfer shall be in exchange for

 4

alternative land of equivalent value suitable for salt production failing

which on payment of market value. Since the land transfer on exchange of

suitable alternative land for salt manufacture was not materialized in

spite of the efforts made by the Respondent Departments, finally agreed

upon to effect the transfer on payment of market value by the 6 th

Respondent as per Internal Policy Guidelines. As the method of arriving

market value by appointing a Registered Valuer, etc., the said process was

delayed due to various Administrative affairs and now the said process

has completed and the 6th Respondent has to pay the Market Value. The

transfer proposal was considered by the Govt. of India subject to various

terms and conditions and the 6th Respondent should pay the

compensation to the lessees of Krishnapatnam Salt Factory as

development cost and the compensation package to be worked out based

on mutual understanding/agreement between the lessees and the Govt. of

Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the Respondents 1 to 5 are not required to pay

any compensation to the lessees in the event of considering their land for

transfer to other agencies on public interest. The petitioner has tried to

interpret the 3rd respondent letters dated 14.07.2011 and 4.10.2012 for

which the first respondent being the head of organization had suitably

advised the 3rd respondent being a Subordinate officer of the Respondent

Department vide his letter dated 15.10.2012. (R-6). Further, the first

respondent has implemented the Government orders in connection with

land lease renewal policy for salt manufacture vide Government Gazette

Notification letter No. 04014/1/2012- salt dated 09-10-2013 (R-7)

according to which Central Government land shall be leased for salt

manufacture for a period of 20 years only by invitation of tenders without

considering for lease renewal for further periods, fresh tenders will be
 5

called. In view of the above Gazette Notification, the respondent

department could not consider the Petitioner’s lease renewal beyond the

lease period. In this regard, The Honourable High court of Andhra

Pradesh, Madras High Court etc. have already dismissed the ex lessees

prayers to renew their expired leases vide batch of writ petitions in its

order dated 11.12.18 and 22.12.2021 respectively. (R-8 & R-9)

5. As regards para 3 and 4 it is submitted that the petitioner has

tried to interpret the narrated story of Age old salt manufacturing

process in India which is not actually relevant to his prayer. The

system of salt manufacture which were being followed since 1873

till 2013 was superseded by various subsequent Government

Orders in view of changed scenario. All the lessees of respondent

department should abide the terms and conditions of the lease

deed duly executed and registered as per Transfer of Property Act

1882 and shall leave the premises on their own on the expiry of

the lease as per lease deed condition 3 invariably.

6. As regards para 5 of the petitioner, it is submitted here that on

behalf of the Respondents Department, the 2nd respondent vide

his letter no. 11015/5/W/G/06/7619-23 dated 18.05-2006 (R-

10) addressed to 7th respondent about the proposed transfer to

Government of Andhra Pradesh subject to the views of the lessees

having valid lease as on date of consideration. Based on the 2 nd

respondent letter, the 7th respondent submitted the proposal to

Principal Secretary to Government (PORTS) Department,

Government of Andhra Pradesh to forward the same to Salt

 6

Commissioner, Jaipur, 1st respondent for making suitable

recommendation to Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DIPP)

Government of India, to accord permission for transfer of 775.35

Acres of available SCO Land for development of Krishnapatnam

Port vide his letter dated 29-08-2008 (R-11). The decision of

transferring entire land including salt cultivated land to the State

Government of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of development of

Krishnapatnam port was considered carefully after taking the

views of the concerned lessees having valid lease as on 2006 vide

letter dated 26-09-2008 (R-12). According to which the willing

lessees to give up their leased land on payment of compensation

to be arrived mutually by them with the District Collector Nellore,

if they are not willing to take alternative land on exchange basis.

7. As regards to para 6 it is submitted that the petitioner has

informed that his lease was renewed by the 2 nd respondent for a

further period of 335 days or till the said lands are handover to

6th respondent. But the 2nd respondent has not issued no such

renewal order to the petitioner as he was having valid lease up to

24-05-2021. Further, the Petitioner was a defaulter in payment of

government dues since 2020 and hence the Salt Factory Officer,

5th respondent had been advised to recover the pending

Government dues before the lease expiry vide his letter dated

01.04.2021. (R-13) The 5th respondent had also been specifically

advised to take over the land into the possession on 25.05.2021

F/N after observing usual formalities. In the meantime the

 7

petitioner has filed this WP and obtained interim order as status

quo in the honorable court order dated 20.05.2021. (R-4)

8. As regards para 7 it is submitted that the 3 rd respondent being

one of the officer of the salt department had misinterpreted the

system of salt manufacture introduced during the Regime of

British Government and which is no way relevant to the present

system of salt manufacture and gave false hope to the salt lessees

to get further renewal. All these points in this connection raised

by the ex lessees before the Honorable court of Andhra Pradesh,

Honorable Madras High court was well argued by the Ld. ASGs

and all batch of WPs duly dismissed during 2018 & 2021 and

advised the ex lessees for those whose lease period already

expired should leave the premise within 6 months and 3 months

respectively after clearing the dues demanded by the Department.

Hence the petitioner has no locus standi to claim the renewal of

the lease beyond 24.05.2021.

As regards to the 3rd Respondent letter regarding compensation

it is submitted here that :

“though the 3rd Respondent (ASC, Kakinada) reported about

the compensation paid by the 8th Respondent (i.e. then M/s
Krishnapatnam Port Co. Ltd. and now, Adani
Krishnapatnam Port Ltd.) to the tune of Rs. 16000/- per acre in
para 7 of his letter vide C.No.L- 11015/2/2006/1685-89 dated
14th July, 2011 (Annex – P10).”

It is stated that as per lease deed condition no. 3 the lessee shall
not be entitled to receive any compensation from the lessor
Department for any expenditure that may have incurred in
respect of the works or to any damages if the area is resumed.
 8

However as per the internal policy guidelines dated 24.01.2012

for transfer of salt pan land under salt cultivation, the transferee
agency shall pay compensation if any to the affected lessees vide
para 2(xii). As it could be seen from the petitioner’s statement
that some monetary consideration towards compensation has
been received from the 8th respondent by the Petitioner, but the
details of such payment was not communicated to the
respondents 1 to 5 and 9.

9. As regards para 8 it is submitted that the petitioner was paid

Rs. 20000 per acre by the 8th respondent to all the salt

manufacturers as compensation towards loss of Production. The

above payment was not been made with the knowledge of

respondents 1 to 5 & 9 and hence we are unable to comment on

this since the transfer of land to the 8 th respondent has not been

taken place till date. In order to substantiate the claim of

Compensation, the petitioner has referred 3 rd respondent letter

dated 14.07.2011 para 23, 24, 25 & 27 and Ministry of commerce

& industry DIPP transfer policy guidelines dated 24.01.2012. (R-

5) As regards 3rd respondent letter regarding compensation it is

submitted here that the 3rd respondent is unnecessarily

interpreted the procedure was in vogue during British Regime

where compensation was paid to the salt manufacturers by the

lessor department having a valid license & not lease. At present,

as per lease deed condition no. 3 the lessee shall not be entitled

to receive any compensation from the lessor Department for any

expenditure that may have incurred in respect of the works or to

any damages if the area is resumed. However as per the internal

 9

policy guidelines dated 24.01.2012 for transfer of salt pan land

under salt cultivation, the transferee agency shall pay

compensation if any to the affected lessees vide para 2(xii). As it

could be seen from the petitioner’s statement that some monetary

consideration towards compensation has been received from the

8th respondent by the Petitioner.

10. As regards para 9 it is submitted that since the Government

considered the request of Government of Andhra Pradesh for

transfer of SCO land to development of Krishnapatnam Port, the

respondent department, as a policy decision, decided not to

renew/assign the land for salt manufacture in the area of

Krishnapatnam salt factory for further period. During 2012, the

Respondent Department was considering the lease renewal subject

to certain conditions viz, due diligence in salt manufacture, prompt

payment of Govt. dues in time, etc. Hence, all the lessees whose

lease period was expired during 2012 were informed about the

Government decision and to leave the lease premises immediately on

expiry of the lease period and based on the 2 nd respondent direction,

the 5th respondent issued notice to all ex lessees to handover

peaceful possession of the land as per lease deed condition which is

legally valid. The interpretation of 3 rd respondent’s letter dated

4.10.2012 is not relevant to this subject matter, although the other

ex lessees were able to obtain interim orders before this honorable

court by filing WP 33436 of 2012, WP 34138 of 2012, WP 34200 of

2012, WP 34227 of 2012, WP 36946 of 2012, WP 17298 of 2015, WP

36899 of 2015, and WP 35164 of 2018 which are still pending. The
 10

respondents Department was acted against the ex lessees as per

lease deed conditions and requested to handover the possession of

land before 5th respondent after the expiry of lease. All the lessees

whose livelihood was affected due to transfer of SCO land are truly

eligible for the quantum of compensation towards loss of production

etc. incurred during the tenancy of the lease period. But the

petitioner cannot claim the renewal of this lease at par with payment

of delay in compensation from the 8th respondent.

Since the subject land at Krishnapatnam salt factory are required to

be transferred to the 6th respondent,(and not for the Adani
Krishnapattinam Port) the same has not been considered for
assignment for salt manufacture and tenders have not been called
for till date.

11. As regards para 10 it is submitted that the copy of government

of India gazette notification 09.10.2013 (R-6) is enclosed herewith for

petitioner’s perusal. Since the subject land at Krishnapatnam salt

factory are required to be transferred to the 6 th respondent, the same

has not been considered for assignment for salt manufacture and

hence tenders have not been called for till date. The approval of

market value fixed by the registered valuer by the competent

authority is under process and the 6 th respondent may transfer

market value of the said land to the Government of India shortly at

any time.

12. As regards para 11 it is submitted that the petitioner has

rightly pointed out the 2nd respondent letters dated 30.09.2014 and

30.03.2015 (R-14 & R-15) regarding methodology for fixing

 11

compensation to salt manufacturers. The quantum of compensation

has to be arrived at by way of mutual negotiations with the

transferee that is 6th and 8th respondents and not with 2nd

respondent.

As the intention of the SCO is to recover pending dues viz. AF, GR,

ME dues etc. from the ex-lessees and the matter was sub judiced

due to filing of various court cases by the ex-lessees, the 2nd

respondent had requested the 6th respondent to direct the

Krishnapattinam Port Company Ltd. to pay the compensation to the

Salt Manufactures only after consultation with the transferor

department so as to enable to receive the outstanding dues from

them. As per the transfer policy of Government of India, dated

24.01.2012 under para 2(xii) For land under active salt cultivation

and under consideration for transfer, the transferee agency shall pay

compensation to the lessees “for loss of business only (and not

for loss of land)” if any, for extinguishing the lease hold rights and

meet the cost of rehabilitation of the salt workers.

13. As regards para 12 & 13, it is submitted that the 6 th & 7th

respondents have fixed and recommended compensation of

Rs.15,00,000 per acre to the lessees including the petitioner leased

land vide their letters dated 02.12.2015& 29.12.2015.(R-16 & R-17)

Even though the respondent department has no role in the matter of

either fixing or paying compensation to the lessees, the 2 nd

respondent requested the 6th respondent to direct the 8 th respondent

to pay compensation to the salt manufacturers only after

consultation with the transferee department (owner of the land)

 12

enabling it to recover the outstanding dues, if any from them. As the

lessees/Ex lessees were to pay government dues viz assignment fee,

ground rent, ME dues etc. as pending for recovery and the various

cases filed by the ex lessees before honorable high court of

Hyderabad challenging the cancellation/non-renewal of their leases

by the respondent department were also pending the 1 st and 2nd

respondents requested the 6th respondent to withdraw or at least

withhold the orders of payment of compensation till Government of

Andhra Pradesh conveys its concern to transfer of identified

alternative salt land of equivalent market value and Department of

IPP issued orders formally transferring the land in question to the 6 th

respondent. The intention of the respondent department is to

implement the internal policy guidelines for transfer of salt pan land

dated 24.01.2012 in a true spirit and according to which the

transfer shall be in exchange of alternative land of equivalent value

suitable for salt production failing in which on payment of market

value as per para 2 (ii) and hence the said letters have not been

issued by the respondents 1 & 2 at the behest of the 8 th respondent.

It is also submitted here that the transfer of land to the State

Government of Tamilnadu for the purpose of establishment of

TIDCO and the Government of India proceedings dated 06.01.1999

was considered before issue of internal policy guidelines dated

24.01.2012.

14. As regards para 14 it is submitted that it is a fact that the 1 st

respondent has communicated the Ministry’s decision vide letter

dated 11.07.2016 (R-18) about the note for the consideration of the
 13

cabinet on closure of salt commissioners organization and disposal

of salt pan lands and according to which the Salt Commissioners

organization was requested not to renew or grant any lease till a

decision taken on subject matter. Due to this order no assignment of

salt pan land for salt manufacture was considered by the

department from 11.07.2016 to 12.09.2019, wherein the ministry of

commerce and industry vide letter F.No.04011/1/2018 dated

12.09.2019 (R-19) as ordered to allow SCO land of manufacture of

salt in accordance with the governments resolution No.

04014/1/2012 dated 09.10.2013 subject to certain additional

conditions.

15. As regards para 15 &16 it is submitted that although the

petitioner was not showing due diligence in manufacture of salt

since 2012 onwards and not paying the following government dues

in spite of repeated reminders issued by the factory officer, the

Respondent Department did not take any coercive measure against

the Petitioner as per lease deed conditions and action was initiated

to take over the land into possession only after expiry of his lease.

But the Petitioner did not realize about the lease violation, simply

applied for the renewal request vide his letter dated 26.04.2021.

When the Government vide Gazette notification dated 09.10.2013

not to renew the lease for the existing lessees, as to how the

petitioner shall claim the renewal on the only ground of not receiving

the compensation from the transferee, the 6th respondent. The

petitioner as per the lease deed condition No.3 should leave the

demised premises on his own on the expiry of the lease period and
 14

hence the 5th respondent was advised to take over the possession of

the land on 25.05.2021 F/N positively following due process of law.

The respondent departments, as earlier explained, no way connected

with the compensation affair which is solely agreed upon mutually

between the transferee and lessees concerned. The situation of

withdrawal/ withholding of compensation request made by the

respondent department with transferee is purely based on the

requirement stipulated in the internal policy guidelines 24.01.2012.

16. As regards Para 17& 18 it is submitted that the petitioner has

requested the respondent to renew the lease for further period due to

the reason that the 6th respondent is not paying the compensation

and not for commencing salt manufacture in the above said land

which is not only contrary to the government of India Gazette

Notification dated 09.10.2013 but also against the decision taken by

the Government on the request of the 6 th respondent for considering

the transfer of these lands to the account of the 8 th respondent for

the development of Krishnapatnam port activities on public interest

and Govt. policy decision. The petitioner may be liable to get the

quantum of compensation towards the loss of production, etc. for

the period upto his lease period only that is upto 24.05.2021 from

the 6th respondents invariably as and when the compensation

considered by the 6th Respondent is released. In view of the position

explained above the petitioner has got no legal rights over the

Respondent Department lands for seeking renewal beyond the lease

period. Further the decision of not renewing the lease beyond the

lease period is not only due to transfer of said land to 6 th Respondent

 15

but also the policy of Govt. as per Gazette Notification dated 09-10-

2013 and batch of Writ Petitions filed in this regard by the aggrieved

ex-lessees have already been dismissed by the respective High

Courts with the directions to leave the leased area within six

months/three months from the date of receipt of Hon’ble High Court

of Andhra Pradesh and Hon’ble Madras High Court orders

respectively. It is therefore pray to the Hon’ble Court that the

petitioner may please be ordered suitably to handover the land to

the salt factory officer Iskapalli immediately and to clear all pending

dues as per the demand enclosed (R-19) with penal interest as

stipulated in the lease deed condition with cost. If the petitioner gets

compensation, then respondent no. 6 (State of Andhra Pradesh) will

make the payment after clearing the dues of the Respondent No. 1

(Salt Commissioner).

17. It is further submitted that in view of the reasons stated

above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to dismiss the present writ petition and with cost vacate the

order dated 17.05.2021 passed in the present writ petition and pass

such an order or orders as may deem and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

Solemnly affirmed and signed his name on this Day of October 2023
In my presence DEPONENT

ATTESTOR
 16

VERIFICATION

I, Shri. C. Raghu S/o. Late S. Chakrapani aged about 57 years,

working as Deputy Salt Commissioner being the deponent herein submits
that the contents of the counter affidavit are true to the best of my
knowledge and no material averments are suppressed by me.

Verified at ___________on this the _____day____________2023

ATTESTOR DEPONENT

Counsel for the Respondents

Date: .10.2023