JUDGMENT : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. Heard Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Koushik Kanduri, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Tera Rajinikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/ respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 2. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4717 of 2024. 3. The disputes involved in the present case revolve around as to whether the appellant’s land in Azamabad Industrial Area should be converted into freehold rights under Category-A (100%) or Category B (200%) of G.O.Ms.No.19 Industries & Commerce (IP & INF) Department dated 29.08.2023 issued by the Government of Telangana. 4. The core issue is as to whether the appellant used the land for industrial activity, which is determinative under Section 3(1)(b) of The Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) Amendment Act No.1 of 2000 (for short ‘Act 1 of 2000’), which came into effect w.e.f. 17.02.2000 as well as G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023. 5. The appellant herein is the petitioner before the learned Single Judge challenging the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in failing to convert the lands belonging to the appellant admeasuring 2499 sq. yards in Plot Nos.3, 3/1 to 3/7 in Azamabad Industrial Estate, Hyderabad from leasehold to freehold rights. 6. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.01.1952, the then Government of Hyderabad executed a lease deed in favour of one M/s.Shivdatrai Gulab Rai, a partnership firm in respect of plot Nos. 3/1 to 3/7 of Azamabad Industrial Area for establishment of Spinning and Weaving Mills. The appellant herein is the grandson of one of the partners of the said firm. 7. On 11.07.1992, the State/Official respondents enacted Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) Act 15 of 1992 to regulate the leasehold rights and to curb the misuse of the lands. 8. On 17.02.2000, respondents/State came up with an Amendment to Act 15 of 1992 as Act 1 of 2000. Section 3 of the said Amendment Act lays down certain criteria for termination of leases and vesting of the land with Government. 9. On 29.01.2022, a Joint Inspection of the lands was conducted in the Azamabad Industrial Area including the lands of the appellant. Section 3 of the said Amendment Act lays down certain criteria for termination of leases and vesting of the land with Government. 9. On 29.01.2022, a Joint Inspection of the lands was conducted in the Azamabad Industrial Area including the lands of the appellant. Subsequently, the Government issued Memo No.INF/A1/2018 dated 29.08.2022 deciding to issue freehold rights by fixing the price for original allottees as 100% of the registration value and 200% of registration value for others. 10. Pursuant to the said Memo, the appellant/petitioner submitted a representation on 20.10.2022 requesting the Government to convert the leasehold rights of the land to freehold rights in terms of the Memo dated 29.08.2022. 11. Thereupon, on 25.10.2022, the Government issued a demand notice to the appellant directing payment of Rs.242,96,77,580/- being 200% of the registration value for conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights as per the Memo dated 29.08.2022. 12. The appellant submitted reply dated 28.10.2022 stating that the appellant would fall under category of original allottees and is only liable to pay 100% of the registration, but not 200%. 13. Since, the appellant did not comply with the demand notice dated 25.10.2022, the authorities issued notice dated 14.08.2023 calling upon the appellant to pay the requisite amount on or before 30.08.2023. It was also informed in the notice that if the amount is not paid, the State is at liberty to take appropriate legal action basing on the Joint Inspection Report. 14. On 30.08.2023, the appellant replied to the notice dated 14.08.2023 without any objection to the Joint Inspection Report and requested conversion of his leasehold to freehold right by collecting 100% of the registration value. 15. On 21.10.2023, the appellant made application claiming himself to be falling under Category-A of G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023 and sought conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights. Since, there is no reply to the earlier representation dated 21.10.2023, the appellant submitted another representation dated 12.02.2024 as reminder stating that the earlier representation submitted by the appellant is pending consideration and without consideration of the application, demanding the payments is arbitrary, and thereby filed the Writ Petition No.4717 of 2024. 16. Since, there is no reply to the earlier representation dated 21.10.2023, the appellant submitted another representation dated 12.02.2024 as reminder stating that the earlier representation submitted by the appellant is pending consideration and without consideration of the application, demanding the payments is arbitrary, and thereby filed the Writ Petition No.4717 of 2024. 16. Pursuant to the interim order granted by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to consider the application submitted by the appellant, the respondents considered the application and on 20.03.2024 rejected the application of the appellant duly taking into consideration of the Joint Inspection Report on the ground that the appellant does not satisfy the conditions laid down under G.O. Subsequently, the appellant filed an amendment petition challenging the rejection order. 17. Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the notices issued to the appellant on 25.10.2022 and 14.08.2023 does not disclose the charges based on the Joint Inspection Report and that the impugned order dated 23.03.2024 relies on the said Joint Inspection Report, but the appellant was never put on notice regarding these findings neither disclose any charges based on the Joint Inspection Report nor the impugned order dated 20.03.2024 18. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge in the impugned order gave contradictory findings about Clause 3(1)(B) of Amending Act of 2000 being attracted and placed the appellant in Category-B based on the Joint Inspection Report. 19. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the appellant is a long standing lessee of the land, which was originally leased by the erstwhile Nizam State. The 1992 Act terminates all the leases and pursuant to the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in 2000, an Amendment was enacted relaxing the consequences. 20. Learned Senior Counsel finally contended that the categorization depends entirely on the Joint Inspection Report, and since findings of the said Joint Inspection Report were never put into notice. It is further contended that the notices dated 25.10.2022 and 14.08.2023 did not contain any charges based on the inspection report which ought to have formed the basis for determination of market value, which would have allowed the appellant to afford an opportunity to answer those charges. But using the findings of the said inspection report against the Appellant is arbitrary. 21. But using the findings of the said inspection report against the Appellant is arbitrary. 21. Thereby the appellant approached this Court to set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.05.2025 directing the official respondents to issue fresh notice to the appellant disclosing the charges so as to enable the appellant to respond to it and to avail an opportunity. 22. On the other hand, Sri Tera Rajanikanth Reddy, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the question before the learned Single Judge was only with respect to category A & B under G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023, and that the appellant never established the Cotton Mill for which the land was allotted thereby violating Section 3(1)(b) of the Act 1 of 2020. It was further contended that the land in question was sublet to commercial entities without permission and that the Joint Inspection Report clearly establishes that no industrial activity is going on and that the land is not in possession of the original allottee and the same is put to commercial use, and as such, the appellant did not satisfy any clauses under Category-A. 23. It is the case of the respondents that the appellant is not entitled for conversion of leasehold rights from freehold rights in both categories- A and B of the G.O. since the appellant had violated Section 3(1)(b) of the Act by not establishing the industry for which the land was originally allotted and in view of the said violation, the lease stood terminated and land is vested with the Government. 24. It is the case of respondents that the rejection order clearly provides reasons as to how the appellant does not fulfill the conditions under Category-A i.e. the subject lands neither have operational/dormant industrial unit nor is the plot vacant and instead, portion of the plot has been let out to business entities, and that the said reasons were mentioned based on the Joint Inspection Report. 25. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the appellant never objected to the Joint Inspection Report and that the notice issued to the appellant on 14.08.2023 specifically refers to the Joint Inspection Report, for which the appellant neither submitted any reply nor assailed the said Report by way of legal proceedings. 26. 25. Learned Additional Advocate General further contended that the appellant never objected to the Joint Inspection Report and that the notice issued to the appellant on 14.08.2023 specifically refers to the Joint Inspection Report, for which the appellant neither submitted any reply nor assailed the said Report by way of legal proceedings. 26. It was further contended by the learned Additional Advocate General that G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023 itself relies on the Joint Inspection Report and that a party claiming benefit under the said G.O., cannot question the very basis of the said GO i.e. Joint Inspection Report. He therefore contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is based on appreciating the facts and circumstances that the appellant cannot fall under Category-A of the G.O. as he does not fulfill the conditions under the said Category, and the said order does not call for any interference by this Court. 27. Sri M.Srikanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate General, and further contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and the appellant’s land is neither operational/dormant industrial unit nor is it a vacant land, which does not fulfill Category-A. 28. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 further contended that the Azamabad Industrial Area was created for industrial development, but now it is a prime commercial land, thereby the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant/petitioner. 29. We have given our earnest consideration to the pleadings and contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties. 30. The entire case revolves around the Joint Inspection Report dated 01.04.2022, foundational document for subsequent administrative action and for issuance of G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023. A show cause notice dated 14.08.2023 was issued to the appellant for conversion of land from leasehold to freehold rights. Under Section 3(1) of the Act 1 of 2010, all leases or other arrangements made or entered into through a registered deed or otherwise in respect of all demised plots in the Azamabad Industrial Area stand terminated on the appointed date i.e. 11.07.1992 and consequently, all sub-leases or any other arrangements whatsoever made by the person/entity in occupation to hold possession of the demised plot stand annulled and every such demised plot vests with the Government free from all encumbrances and shall be used subsequently for industrial purpose only. 31. The record discloses that the Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department vide Memo dated 29.01.2020 directed a comprehensive joint inspection of all industrial plots in Azamabad Industrial Area to ascertain whether the lands were being utilized for the industrial purposes for which they were originally allotted. Pursuant thereto, officials of the District Industries Centre and the Revenue Department undertook a joint inspection under the supervision of the District Collector and submitted their report on 01.04.2022. The said report revealed that 58 units, including the plots held by TSRTC, were in possession of persons other than the original allottees. It was based on these findings that the Cabinet Sub-Committee, in its meeting dated 25.06.2022, recommended a policy to extend freehold rights to all units in the Area. 32. After detailed deliberations, the Government issued revised policy instructions in supersession of the earlier Memos of 29.08.2022 and 02.02.2023. These culminated in the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023, which classified existing occupants into different categories for the purpose of determining the conversion charges payable for grant of freehold rights. The categorization explicitly depended on factual criteria emerging from the Joint Inspection Report. Under this framework, the appellant was categorized under Category-B, which prescribes conversion charges at 200% of the registration value. 33. The learned Single Judge, after examining the material on record, concluded that the appellant did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for Category-A prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023. The findings of the learned Single Judge rest on the twin conclusions that (i) there was no operational or dormant industrial unit functioning on the appellant’s land, and (ii) the land was neither vacant nor used for industrial purposes. These findings were directly supported by the Joint Inspection Report, which documented that the property was being utilized for commercial purposes and had been sublet to third parties. 34. It is a well-settled principle of administrative law that courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with the policy decisions of the Government unless such policy is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of statutory provisions. The policy embodied in G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023 is a uniform and rational scheme applicable to all existing occupants in the Azamabad Industrial Area. The classification under the G.O.Ms.No.19 is clearly based on objective criteria such as the nature of use, possession, and status of industrial activity. In the absence of any illegality in the policy or its implementation, judicial interference is unwarranted. 35. The classification under the G.O.Ms.No.19 is clearly based on objective criteria such as the nature of use, possession, and status of industrial activity. In the absence of any illegality in the policy or its implementation, judicial interference is unwarranted. 35. The learned Single Judge rejected the contentions of the appellant with cogent reasoning, particularly noting that the appellant neither satisfied the industrial activity requirement nor demonstrated compliance with Section 3(1) (b) of Act 1 of 2000. The learned Single Judge found that the land was not being used for the purpose for which it was allotted and therefore the appellant could not be treated as an eligible industrial unit entitled to Category-A benefits. These findings are firmly anchored in the factual matrix and based on material documents, especially the Joint Inspection Report. 36. In view of the above discussion, we find no error or infirmity in the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge. The categorization of the appellant under Category-B is consistent with the statutory scheme and governmental policy. The conclusions arrived at are neither perverse nor contrary to law, and therefore do not warrant interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. 37. We reiterate and direct the respondents to convert the subject of the appellant from leasehold to freehold in terms of Clause 17 Category-B of G.O.Ms.No.19 dated 29.08.2023 by duly collecting 200% of the registration value as on the date of registration including any other charges in accordance with the guidelines of Registration Department. 38. Subject to above observations and direction, the W.A.No.1097 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.