Can't Challenge Notices Issued To Predecessor After Litigating For Decades: AP High Court Dismisses McDowell's Appeal With ₹50K Cost

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a batch of five writ appeals, holding that a company which had litigated the same land dispute for decades without questioning the validity of statutory notices could not, after suffering adverse decisions, seek to reopen the matter by contending that the notices had been issued to its predecessor company following amalgamation. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 133]Upholding a common order of the Single Judge, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 in each appeal.Observing that the plea regarding notices being issued to the company's predecessor was nothing but a belated attempt to prolong the litigation, the Court remarked:"In our considered opinion, it is not open to appellant-petitioner to now subsequently raise question of issuance of notice to an incorrect entity while it is a matter of record that present petitioner has been pursuing this litigation right from beginning. Such a plea admittedly was never raised by petitioner, at any earlier point of time.A totally unjustified plea regarding notice not being issued to the correct entity was then raised as a last-ditch effort, despite the petitioner itself having actively pursued earlier litigation, without ever raising such a plea. Admittedly, petitioner was aware of each proceeding and was pursuing it in its own capacity. Conduct of appellant/writ petitioner clearly amounts to abuse of process of law, which calls for imposition of cost."The dispute arose under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. It concerned 4.3101 hectares of land at Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam, which had been exempted under Section 20 of the ULC Act in favour of Hindustan Polymers Limited (later amalgamated with M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd.) on the condition that it would be used to construct residential quarters for the company's officers. However, after the company failed to utilise the land for the approved purpose, the Government withdrew the exemption and initiated acquisition proceedings. Challenging these proceedings, the appellants argued before the Division Bench that the acquisition itself was legally invalid because, even after Hindustan Polymers had merged with McDowell, the statutory notices continued to be issued in the name of the erstwhile company. According to them, notices issued to a company that had ceased to exist rendered the entire acquisition void. The appellants also claimed the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act, contending that the acquisition proceedings were invalid and, therefore, the land had not validly vested in the State before the repeal of the ULC Act, entitling them to its restoration.Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the argument was without merit. It noted that, in 1997 itself, the Government had amended the relevant Government Order to describe the entity as "Hindustan Polymers, a Division of McDowell & Company Limited," thereby recognising the amalgamation. More importantly, it observed that McDowell had itself instituted and prosecuted several writ petitions and appeals concerning the very same land in its own name for decades without ever contending that the notices had been issued to the wrong entity. Having fully participated in the earlier proceedings and suffered adverse decisions, the company could not, at this stage, challenge the acquisition on the ground that the notices had been addressed to Hindustan Polymers. The Court further held that the principal controversy regarding withdrawal of exemption had already attained finality. Earlier Division Bench judgments had upheld the withdrawal on the ground that the company failed to use the land for the purpose for which the exemption had been granted. As the Supreme Court dismissed the company's Special Leave Petitions and review petitions in 2002, the issue could no longer be reopened.The Bench also held that, since the State had taken lawful possession of the land in January 1998, before the Repeal Act came into force in Andhra Pradesh, the appellants could not claim any benefit under Section 3.Finding no merit in the appeals, the Court dismissed all five writ appeals and directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 50,000 as costs in each appeal with the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within sixty days.Case Title: M/s. McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (along with connected appeals)Case Nos.: W.A. Nos. 618, 609, 627, 628 & 666 of 2024Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. C. Hanumantha RaoCounsel for the Respondents: Mr. D. Srinivas, Advocate General, appearing for the Government Pleader for Home.Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 133

Can't Challenge Notices Issued To Predecessor After Litigating For Decades: AP High Court Dismisses McDowell's Appeal With ₹50K Cost

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

Can't Challenge Notices Issued To Predecessor After Litigating For Decades: AP High Court Dismisses McDowell's Appeal With ₹50K Cost

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ritika Verma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers