ORDER: VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J. The instas filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following reliefs: “..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the letter of the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Srikakulam, No. Z0/SKLM/VZMDT/NCMF/ 2020/407, dated 29.12.2020 refusing petitioners request dated 15.09.2020 to receive the land cost of Rs 7,34,31,525/- in respect of Acres 70.18 cents in Sy No.22 to 25 and 79 to 84 in Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District and deciding to refund the initial payment made by the Company as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the principles of natural justices and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to allot the land of Acres 70.18 cents in Sy No.22 to 25 and 79 to 84 in Basavapuram Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District to the petitioners and issue Final Approval for setting up Mega Food Project and pass..” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The case of the Writ Petitioners is that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 25.02.2018 was executed between the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Petitioners for the establishment of a Mega Food Park in Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Pursuant to the aforesaid MoU, a land measuring Ac. 70.18 cents, which includes Ac.50.21 cents of assigned land and Ac.19.97 cents of Government Land covered in Sy.Nos.22 to 25 and 79 to 84 in Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, was earmarked by the Government to alienate said land to APIIC and for onward allotment to the 1 st Petitioner. The 1 st Petitioner is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, on 10.05.2018. The 1 st Petitioner was incorporated by the 2 nd Petitioner, primarily, for establishment of Mega Food Park with infrastructure facilities for production, processing and preservation of meat, fish, fruit, vegetables oils, fats etc., The Government of India, as part of its economic policy desired to set up its first coastal economic corridor called East Coast Economic Corridor (ECEC), covering 2500 KM of India’s coastline running across the entire East Coast of India from Kolkata to Kanyakumari to promote trade and business. The first phase of ECEC is Visakhapatnam – Chennai Industrial Corridor (VCIC) which had been approved by the Asian Development Bank Board in October, 2016. The first phase of ECEC is Visakhapatnam – Chennai Industrial Corridor (VCIC) which had been approved by the Asian Development Bank Board in October, 2016. The project to be set up by the Petitioners was to become part of this network. 3. Accordingly, the Collector, Vizianagaram District vide his letter dated 24.08.2018 and 30.08.2018 intimated to Zonal Manager, APIIC, Srikakulam Industrial Estate, that the market value is fixed @ Rs.12.5 lakhs per acre for the assigned lands in Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal. The Zonal Manager, APIIC, Industrial Estate, Srikakulam vide his correspondence dated 31.08.2018 intimated to the 1 st Petitioner that the revised demand of land cost for assigned land admeasuring Ac.46.43 cents @ Rs.12,50,000/- per acre is coming to Rs.5,80,37,500/- and the government land admeasuring Ac. 18.00 cents @ Rs.5,00,000/- is coming to Rs.90,00,000/- respectively totaling an amount of Rs.6,70,37,500/- and thereby directed the 1 st Petitioner to deposit the processing fee of Rs.16,10,750/- arrived @ 25,000/- per acre and EMD @ Rs.20,000/- per acre, and GST @ 18% on process fee calculated to Rs.2,89,935/- totally an amount of Rs.31,89,285/- in APIIC Bank Account. In compliance of the above, the 1 st Petitioner by way of DD No.997182, dated 07.09.2018 drawn on SBI deposited Rs.31,89,285/- to the account of APIIC as processing fee and EMD, including GST. 4. The Collector, Vizianagaram on the request received from the Zonal Officer and on verifying the correspondence submitted by RDO, Vizianagaram and the Tahsildar, Bhogapuram Village vide his correspondence dated 03.02.2019 communicated to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Vijayawada that the proposals were submitted to the CCLA for alienation of assigned lands admeasuring Ac.50.21 cents in Sy.Nos.22 to 24 and 79 to 83 on payment of compensation @ 12.5 lakhs per acre to the eligible assignees / encroachers and Government Land of Ac.19.97 cents in Sy.Nos.79 to 84 at free of cost in the light of G.O.Ms.No.106, Revenue dated 16.03.2017 i.e., total extent of land Ac.70.18 cents of Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal subject to condition that the APIIC should release funds for payment of ex-gratia to the eligible assignees of the land. The Collector, Vizianagaram in his letter also referred the conditions of alienation and resolution of Gram Panchayat, Thudem. The Collector, Vizianagaram in his letter also referred the conditions of alienation and resolution of Gram Panchayat, Thudem. With reference to the communication of the Collector, Vizianagaram to CCLA, the Special Chief Secretary by the order of Government of A.P in G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 13.02.2019, ordered for alienation of Government land to an extent of Ac.19-97 cents of Basavapalem Village of Bhogapuram Mandal in favour of APIIC free of cost as per G.O.Ms.No.106 for allotment to the 1 st Petitioner for establishment of Mega Food Park. 5. After correspondence with revenue officials and receiving the processing fee and EMD from the 1 st Petitioner, the APIIC did not communicate to the 1 st Petitioner as to the further steps, for allotment of land. Hence, the 1 st Petitioner vide its letter dated 14.02.2019 requested the APIIC to furnish the account particulars for depositing the compensation amount to be paid to land owners (assignees) including amounts for allotment of Government Land at price fixed by the Government. The Chairman, APFPS and Secretary, Goods Processing Department, Govt. of A.P vide proceedings dated 19.02.2019, in principle gave approval to the 1 st Petitioner to establish Mega Food Park in Vizianagaram District under the scheme of APFPS on specific terms and conditions such as submission of Detailed Project Report (DPR) and directed the 1 st Petitioner to submit DPR along with other compliances within 4 months for according final approval. The 1 st Petitioner submitted the necessary documents to the Banks for evaluating the DPR for sanction of term loan which is one of the condition imposed by Government for sanction of final approval. 6. The Chairman, APFPS and Secretary (FP), Government of Andhra Pradesh, in correspondence dated 19.02.2019, specifically stated that to be accorded final approval by the Government, the 1 st Petitioner would require to obtain letter from the Bank sanctioning term loan along with Bank appraisal report. Thus the 1 st Petitioner could not deposit the compensation amount immediately to the account of APIIC, owing to the above reason. The 1 st Petitioner vide its communication dated 27.01.2020 and 18.04.2020 requested the Government and APIIC to extend the stipulated time by 3 years for completing the Mega Food Project after getting final sanction from APFPS as per the guidelines of new food processing policy. 7. The 1 st Petitioner vide its communication dated 27.01.2020 and 18.04.2020 requested the Government and APIIC to extend the stipulated time by 3 years for completing the Mega Food Project after getting final sanction from APFPS as per the guidelines of new food processing policy. 7. The 1 st Petitioner from the date of submission of expression of interest till the date had incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,78,49,285/- under various heads to meet the terms of MoU dated 15.02.2018. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, and owing to restrictions imposed by the Government of India and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the activities of various organizations / entities / institutions including the activities of the Petitioner came to a standstill, and there was no possibility for the petitioner to meet the officials or others and take the matter forward. Once the pandemic had subdued the 1 st Petitioner vide its letter dated 15.09.2020 informed that the Government of Andhra Pradesh declared new Industrial Policy 2020-2025 in August,and as the project was in tune with the new industrial policy the 1 st Petitioner will commence its project operations very soon and requested to furnish the account particulars of APIIC for enabling them to deposit compensation amount. Accordingly, the 1 st Petitioner paid Rs.31,31,000/- to APIIC. 8. Zonal Manager, APIIC, Srikakulam in his letter dated 11.12.2020 requested the Collector, Vizianagaram to issue necessary instructions to the Tahsildar, Bhogapuram to hand over the possession of the land in Sy.Nos.22 to 25 and 79 to 84 admeasuring Ac.70.18 cents to APIIC as the lands were alienated in favour of the APIIC. The 1 st Petitioner vide its letter dated 16.12.2020 addressed to the Collector, Vizianagaram informing that the 1 st Petitioner has given its consent to APIIC to deposit Rs.7,34,31,525/- as payment for the land and thereby requested the authority to issue necessary orders for alienation of the subject lands in favour of the 1 st petitioner to commence its project operations. 9. 9. While the matter stood thus, to the surprise and dismay of the 1 st Petitioner, the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Srikakulam by Lr.No. ZO/SKLM / VZMDT / NCMF /2020/407, dated 29.12.2020 intimated in one line to the 1 st Petitioner that the representation dated 15.09.2020 of the 1 st Petitioner for payment of land cost was examined and not considered and informed that the initial payment made by the 1 st Petitioner will be refunded. It is evident that the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Srikakulam has taken a unilateral decision without any confirmation or knowledge of the Government or APIIC. 10. On enquiry the 1 st Petitioner came to know that without seeking any clarification or explanation from the 1 st petitioner, without giving an opportunity of hearing, unilaterally, the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Industrial Estate, Srikakulam contrary to the MoU dated 15.02.2018 and the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 13.02.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 21.02.2019, illegally by letter dated 24.06.2020 proposed and advised VC & MD of APIIC that the lands which are proposed to be alienated to APIIC for onward allotment to M/s North Coastal Mega Food Park (P) Limited for establishment of Mega Food Park under Land Acquisition for others may be withdrawn and proposed establishment of an Industrial Park. 11. It has come to the knowledge of the 1 st Petitioner that the Zonal Manager in active association with certain politicians and for extraneous reasons advised the VC & MD, APIIC, for withdrawal of allotment of subject lands to the 1 st Petitioner. Thus the authority while apparently being in coordination with the Petitioners in aiding to set up the project was acting as under cover for some vested interests who had an eye on the land which was acquired only owing to the hard work put in by the Petitioners. 12. The Petitioners have limited themselves in the averments to the facts of the case and the illegal letter of the 5 th Respondent only as the stand of the other Respondents is not yet known. Without bank assistance the 1 st Petitioner does not have any financial background to deposit the amount. Hence the Writ Petition. 13. 12. The Petitioners have limited themselves in the averments to the facts of the case and the illegal letter of the 5 th Respondent only as the stand of the other Respondents is not yet known. Without bank assistance the 1 st Petitioner does not have any financial background to deposit the amount. Hence the Writ Petition. 13. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed counter affidavits and contends that the 2 nd Petitioner company addressed a letter to VC & MD on 21.03.2018 stating that they signed a MoU for establishment of Mega Food Park on 25.02.2018 and identified an extent of Ac.75.00 cents at Basavapalem Village of Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District and requested to allot the above land under Land Acquisition for other category in their favour for setting up of Mega Food Park. An amount of Rs.12.5 lakhs per acre was recommended by the RDO, Vizianagaram as market value for the assigned land in Basavapalem Village of Bhogapuram Mandal which was proposed to alienate in favour of APIIC and accordingly, the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 informed the 1 st Petitioner company to pay an amount of Rs.31,89,285/- towards Land Acquisition for other category and EMD of Rs.20,000/- per acre along with GST so as to file requisition for alienation of land in favour of APIIC. Accordingly, the 1 st Petitioner paid the above said amount. 14. Respondents further pointed out that the contention of the 1 st Petitioner that APIIC did not communicate about allotment of land is not correct as APIIC cannot communicate to the 1 st Petitioner until orders received from Government. It is stated that the G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue, dated 14.09.2012 specifies that APIIC can allot lands only upto 50 acres and beyond that only Government is competent to allot the lands. Accordingly, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 13.02.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 21.02.2019 issued alienation order in favour of APIIC. It is stated that even after issuing of Demand to the 1 st Petitioner for payment of land cost, the 1 st Petitioner neither deposited the requisite amount nor informed about process of evaluation of DPR for sanction of term loan from the banks to APIIC. 15. It is stated that even after issuing of Demand to the 1 st Petitioner for payment of land cost, the 1 st Petitioner neither deposited the requisite amount nor informed about process of evaluation of DPR for sanction of term loan from the banks to APIIC. 15. The 1 st Petitioner submitted a representation to VC & MD, APIIC on 18.04.2020 requesting to grant 3 more years time for completion of Mega Food Park Project and in response to the said request, the APIIC informed the 1 st Petitioner that allotment process has not yet completed and the request for extension of three more years will be examined after payment of full land cost. The 1 st Petitioner has not paid the land cost even after lapse of 1 year from the date of issue of demand by APIIC and the request for 3 more years was rejected by the APIIC. Having not paid the land cost in spite of sufficient time given, the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as the 1 st petitioner has not come with clean hands and is trying to use the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by seeking untenable claims. 16. Respondent No.6 filed counter affidavit contending that Respondent No.6 was alienated an extent of land admeasuring Ac.19.97 cents out of Government land admeasuring Ac.21.00 cents in Sy.No.25, which is currently split into new survey Nos.84, 79/1, 79/3, 80/1, 80/4, 81/1, 82/3 situated at Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, vide G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 15.03.2024. The subject land is form part of total land admeasuring Ac.70.18 cents in Sy.Nos.22, 23, 24, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84, situated at Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal. The subject land of Ac.70.18 cents was alienated in favour of APIIC vide G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 13.02.2019 and accorded permission to APIIC for allotment of the subject land in favour of the 1 st Petitioner for establishment of Mega Food Park with a condition that the land cost has fixed by the District Collector and if necessary fee as per APIIC norms would be received from the 1 st Petitioner company and to be credited to the revenue authorities for the disbursement of the amount to the assignees as ex-gratia payment. 17. Respondent No.6 further stated that for one reason or the other the 1 st Petitioner did not deposit an amount of Rs.7,31,46,900/- as fixed by the District Collector. 17. Respondent No.6 further stated that for one reason or the other the 1 st Petitioner did not deposit an amount of Rs.7,31,46,900/- as fixed by the District Collector. Even after lapse of 22 months, the 1 st Petitioner did not choose to pay the amount. Therefore, no vested right was created in favour of the Petitioners except allotment proceedings. Further, due to delay in depositing the amount even though the 1 st Petitioner was requested its readiness for deposit of the amount on 11.12.2020, the APIIC rejected the claim vide letter dated 19.12.2020. In view of the rejection of the allotment in favour of the 1 st Petitioner by the Respondents, no vested interest was created in favour of the Petitioners and the allotment in favour of the Respondent No.6 vide G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 15.03.2024 is valid. 18. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in implead petition/Petitioners herein filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the respondents in the writ petition violated the orders passed by this Court. The alienation proposal in favour of Respondent No.6 herein is nothing but violation of orders passed in IA No.1 of 2021 dated 23.2.2021 in the Writ Petition. He further contended that in view of the interim orders of this Court regarding total land admeasuring Ac.70.18 cents in Sy.Nos.22 to 25 and 79 to 84 situated at Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal and a part of the land admeasuring Ac.24.30 cents allegedly said to be handed over to the Respondent No.6 in advance by the District Administration on 18.12.2023 would amount to contempt of Court. Any alienation and allotment in favour of Respondent No.6 is an attempt to wrongful loss to the Petitioners. Therefore, the Respondent No.6 has not come with clean hands before this Hon’ble Court and there is no cause of action and there is no loss and damage caused to the Respondent No.6 to intervene in this Writ Petition. 19 . Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 2 nd petitioner itself identified the land admeasuring Ac.70.18 cents including the land in Sy.No.25 situated at Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal. 19 . Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the 2 nd petitioner itself identified the land admeasuring Ac.70.18 cents including the land in Sy.No.25 situated at Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal. After identifying the land the petitioners time and again requested the respondents to approve the project of the petitioners for availing financial assistance from the financial institutions and the 1 st petitioner also deposited an amount of Rs.31,89,285/- to the 4 th respondent corporation towards processing fee per acre and EMD per acre along with GST. Even after receipt of the said amount towards fee and after MoU dated 25.02.2018, the 4 th Respondent corporation neither alienated the subject property by the 1 st and 3 rd respondents nor even handed over the possession of the subject property, even though the 1 st Petitioner expressed its readiness for payment of compensation as fixed by the 3 rd respondent vide proceedings dated 30.08.2018. 20. He further submits that having granted principal approval for establishment of the subject Food Mega Food Park in Basavapalem on 19.02.2019, but the detailed project report of the 1 st petitioner was not approved as requested by the 1 st petitioner. He also asserts that the 1 st petitioner was informed by the 2 nd respondent that the 1 st respondent is going to approve a new policy, as such the final approval not accorded, due to which the 1 st petitioner not in a position to avail financial assistance from the concerned financial institutions. Having no other option, the 1 st petitioner requested the respondents for extension of time for execution of the subject project on 27.01.2020 and also on 18.04.2020, but the extension as requested by the 1 st petitioner is neither granted nor rejected but replied on 29.04.2020 stating that the request for the extension would be examined only after full and final payment of land cost as directed by the 3 rd respondent. 21. Learned counsel for the Petitioners asserts that without final approval of the project report as well as new policy, the 1 st petitioner is not in a position to avail financial assistance as required for the entire project. After such approval only the petitioners would able to deposit the amount as determined / fixed by the 3 rd respondent regarding cost of the land. After such approval only the petitioners would able to deposit the amount as determined / fixed by the 3 rd respondent regarding cost of the land. In view of these contingencies with the 1 st and 2 nd respondents, the petitioners unable to deposit the compensation amount as requested by the 4 th respondent herein since the amount of land cost is also part and parcel of the entire project cost. Once the project is approved financially, then only the petitioners can move forward for compliance and other steps as required. In the meanwhile apart from the deposit of required statutory fee and also spent so much expenditure more than 2 Crores i.e., Rs.2,78,39,285/- including statutory fee as stated above, under various conditions to meet the terms of the MoU as well as to achieve the ultimate object of establishment of Mega Food Park at Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 22 . Finally, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that vide its letter dated 16.12.2020 to the 3 rd respondent herein expressing its readiness for deposit of the entire land compensation amount @ Rs.7,34,31,525/-. But to the utter surprise to the 1 st petitioner, the 4 th respondent Corporation not considered the request of the 1 st petitioner dated 16.12.2020 and informed that the initial payment made by the 1 st petitioner will be refunded separately as per the rules of the Corporation vide its letter dated 29.12.2020. 23 . Learned Senior Counsel Sri B. Adinarayana Rao further asserts that the action of the respondents in issuing such letter dated 29.12.2020 is contrary to the principle of Legitimate Expectation. He further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioners except the alleged delay in depositing of amount for compensation of the land on the part of the petitioners, even the delay was not happened due to the conduct of the petitioners but it was occurred due to lack of final approval of the project as well as non-framing of new food policy by the 2 nd Respondent. It is settled principle of law that for the fault of one party, the other party cannot be penalized. It is settled principle of law that for the fault of one party, the other party cannot be penalized. The present case in hand is one of such that the entire delay in approval of the project was caused by the respondents but the 1 st petitioner was penalized even though it spent more than Rs.2 Crores for materializing the project as early as possible. Therefore the action of the Respondents by issuing the impugned proceedings dated 29.12.2020 is liable to be set aside and petitioners should be permitted to carry the project as per the terms of the MoU dated 25.02.2018. 24. He further asserts that the 5 th respondent is not the competent authority to issue the impugned letter dated 29.12.2020 under which the request of the 1 st petitioner was rejected which is illegal and arbitrary. On the other hand, Respondents 4 and 5 are only the Nodal agencies / professional agencies to acquire the land from the Government for onward allotment of the land to the 1 st petitioner under the scheme of land acquisition having collected the required processing fee and EMD including GST per acre, the Respondent No.3 also having no authority to cancel any allotments made by the Government. Admittedly, the subject land was allotted in favour of the 1 st petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 13.02.2019. 25. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for 4 th Respondent Corporation and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition have reiterated what was contended in their respective counter affidavits and they also asserts that the 1 st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 13.02.2019 agreeing principally for alienation of subject land i.e., Ac. 70.18 cents situated at Basavapalem Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District in favour of the 1 st petitioner subject to compliance of the conditions as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and also as per G.O.Ms.No.571, Revenue, dated 14.09.2012. In fact, the 4 th respondent corporation can able to alienate on its own to the maximum extent of land is Ac. 50.00 only, admittedly in the instant case, the proposed land for allotment and acquisition is Ac. 70.18 cents. Therefore, invariably the 1 st respondent is the competent authority for alienation of subject extent of land in favour of the 1 st petitioner. 50.00 only, admittedly in the instant case, the proposed land for allotment and acquisition is Ac. 70.18 cents. Therefore, invariably the 1 st respondent is the competent authority for alienation of subject extent of land in favour of the 1 st petitioner. Even after having informed time and again the amount to be deposited towards compensation for land acquisition to the 1 st petitioners i.e., on 31.08.2018, 13.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 and also issued G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 21.02.2019 under which the permission was accorded to APIIC for allotment of the land to the 1 st Petitioner subject to deposit of compensation amount as mentioned above. Except submitting letters for enhancement/extension of the time period of the project by an additional three years, the 1 st Petitioner did not choose to deposit compensation amount even though the lands were pooled for the acquisition with the consent of the assignees . After lapse of nearly two years period, the 1 st petitioner expressed its readiness to deposit the amount firstly on 16.12.2020 only. Further, the essence of the entire project and first and foremost thing is acquisition of the land should be completed within timelines. Without completing the acquisition proceedings, the respondents cannot proceed further. But the 1 st petitioner is canvassing for final approval and also finalization of new Food Policy by the 1 st Respondent without complying its first and foremost obligation of deposit of land compensation amount. Therefore, the 1 st Petitioner cannot canvas non-consideration and compliance of other ancillary things i.e., final approval of the entire project and the statement of 1 st Respondent in respect of new Food Policy and also non-finalization by the financial institutions. For granting of any project, procuring the suitable land either by way of purchase or by acquisition or by way of lease for longer period or by way of allotment for longer period by the State or its instrumentalities. 26 . Heard Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Sri J. Ugranarasimha, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 4 and 5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce for Respondents 1 and 2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondent No.3 and Sri D S Sivadarshan, learned counsel for Respondent No.6 and perused the material placed on record. 27. 27. It appears that the 1 st petitioner is unable to discharge the terms of the MoU and also terms of G.O.Ms.No.139 as well as G.O.Ms.No.48, but canvassing the ancillary things to be performed by the Respondents is only an invented causes and to drag the project till it is able to procure financial assistance from the institutions even for deposit of amount towards compensation for Land Acquisition. Therefore, without getting absolute rights over the subject land/project site which is a prime concern, expecting financial assistance from financial institutions could not become fruitful and it is nothing but doing things without any proper basis or platform. 28. As contended by learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition that in view of non compliance of the obligation by the 1 st petitioner, the 4 th respondent is unable to either alienate the subject land or handed over the possession of the subject land even after allotment was made by the 1 st Respondent as well as other concerned authorities. Therefore, having deviated / violated the terms of MoU as well as G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 13.02.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 21.02.2019, the 1 st petitioner is not entitled to any relief as prayed, is valid and sustainable, in view of the facts and reminder letters issued by the respondent to deposit the land compensation amount as mentioned above. 29. As contended by the learned counsel for implead petitioner that due to violation / deviation of the terms by the Petitioners, out of total land, part of the land i.e., Ac.19.97 cents was allotted to the implead petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 15.03.2024 to meet the public interest. Further, as per the G.O.Ms.No.12 the object and the purpose of the subject allotment is to provide staff accommodations and associated facilities for those agencies of safe and security of the airport operations within airport boundary. Accordingly, the 3 rd Respondent handed over the advanced possession of the land Ac.21.00 cents to the implead Petitioner on 18.12.2023. Therefore, the subject allotment in favour of the implead petitioner is valid and tenable which is for larger public purpose while compared to the purpose of private Mega Food Park of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the 3 rd Respondent handed over the advanced possession of the land Ac.21.00 cents to the implead Petitioner on 18.12.2023. Therefore, the subject allotment in favour of the implead petitioner is valid and tenable which is for larger public purpose while compared to the purpose of private Mega Food Park of the Petitioner. It is to be presumed that in view of failure on the part of the 1 st Petitioner to meet its obligation of deposit the amount towards compensation for the land acquisition, the allotment made by the 1 st and 3 rd respondents is deemed to have lapsed in the eye of law. Therefore, there is no need for issuance of express proceedings to cancel the earlier G.O.Ms.Nos.139 as well as G.O.Ms.No.48 issued in favour of the 1 st Petitioner. The fact remains that the Petitioners absolutely have no right in the subject land as there were consistence failures on their part to comply with the conditions of allotment requirements as indicated and demanded by the 4 th Respondent and also in violation of Board Standing Order No.24. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled any relief, more particularly as prayed in the Writ Petition on the ground that there is no enforceable right in respect of the subject land. 30. In fact, the Respondents entered into MoU with the 2 nd Petitioner on 25.02.2018 after submission of express interest on 15.02.2018. In compliance of the terms of the MoU the Respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 13.02.2019 for alienation of Government land and also issued G.O.Ms.No.48, dated 21.02.2019 according permission to APIIC for allotment of the land as identified and earmarked to the 1 st Petitioner, subject to deposit of compensation payable to the assignees as well as Government land. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the allotment of land in favour of the 1 st Petitioner pursuant to the MoU is a conditional one subject to deposit of land towards compensation as fixed by the 3 rd Respondent, as communicated by the 4 th Respondent on 01.03.2019. The fact remains that for one reason or the other the Petitioners did not comply the essential and first and foremost obligation on their part and violated the conditions of allotment and not deposited the compensation amount, due to which the subject land was neither alienated nor handed over to the 4 th respondent by the 1 st respondent. The fact remains that for one reason or the other the Petitioners did not comply the essential and first and foremost obligation on their part and violated the conditions of allotment and not deposited the compensation amount, due to which the subject land was neither alienated nor handed over to the 4 th respondent by the 1 st respondent. Since there is no alienation or handing over the possession to the 4 th respondent by the 1 st respondent, the claim of the Petitioners for alienation of the subject land as per terms of MoU does not arise. 31. Even though learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the non-deposit of the amount as demanded by the 3 rd and 4 th Respondents is only due to the fault of Respondents 2 to 5 is not valid and sound enough for the reason that the 1 st Petitioner itself addressed a letter to the Respondents seeking extension of period of 3 years for implementation of the project. Apart from that, it also indicated and expressed its inability to deposit due amount due to non-availability of financial assistance from the financial institutions pursuant to the non- approval and non-framing of new food policy by the Respondents is only an invented cause to deserve its failures. On the perusal of the entire scheme of the project the first and foremost step to be completed is acquisition of identified subject land from the assignees, who gave consent for parting land at the rate fixed by the 3 rd respondent. The said consent cannot be extended for longer period as canvassing by the Petitioners since the financial institutions did not come forward to sanction the financial assistance due to lack of final approval of the project is not a ground for non-compliance conditions of allotment on the part of the Petitioners. 32. It is further observed except MoU nothing was conferred any rights in favour of the Petitioners. Moreover having breached the terms of MoU, neither it can sought for any relief for implementation of the same nor cannot be allowed to keep the Government land idle. The fact remains that the subject land was not at all alienated in favour of the 4 th Respondent. Therefore, no question of parting land to the Petitioners would arise. Moreover having breached the terms of MoU, neither it can sought for any relief for implementation of the same nor cannot be allowed to keep the Government land idle. The fact remains that the subject land was not at all alienated in favour of the 4 th Respondent. Therefore, no question of parting land to the Petitioners would arise. The impugned letter dated 29.12.2020 issued by the 5 th respondent wherein it is specifically states that the amounts which were already deposited by the 1 st Petitioner should be refunded as per the Rules of 4 th Respondent Corporation. Therefore, the interest of the Petitioners is also protected. 33. As contended by the learned counsel for Respondents, once the Petitioners violated the terms of the MoU as well as G.O.Ms.No.48 and other proceedings issued by the Respondent, the Petitioners are not entitled any relief, much less as prayed in the writ petition is valid and sustainable and liable to be upheld since the failure of the Petitioners is apparent and unexplained with any cogent reasons except beating around the bush. 34. In view of the above analysis, the Petitioners are not entitled any relief. No vested right was created in favour of the Petitioners except MoU which is also not enforceable in view of the violation of the terms of the MoU by the Petitioners. 35. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the 1 st Petitioner is entitled for refund of amounts which were already deposited initially as per the letter dated 29.12.2020 issued by the 5 th Respondent and any other claims of the Petitioners can be determined by both of them by mutual consent or by initiating alternative proceedings, more particularly under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.