THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO O.S.A.No.18 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) The appellant in this appeal under Clasue 15 of the Letters Patent is an unsuccessful applicant before the Original Side of this Court in Company Application No.474 of 2006, which was purportedly filed under Section 446 of the Companies Act 1956 and Rule 9 of the Company (Court) Rules, 1959 seeking leave and for cancellation of the provisional allotment order dated 13-3-2000 and to take steps to resume possession of the said land to an extent of Acres.12-05 guntas situated in Phase III I.D.A. Patancheru, Medak District through the Estate Officer appointed under the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of un-Authorized Occupants) Act, 1968 and for recovery of damages from the respondent for the period of unauthorized occupation. Unusual set of circumstances gave rise to the present proceedings where the learned judge after going through the entire checkered events did not find favour with the request of the appellants, especially, attributing the latches and failure to take appropriate steps in time and in the manner in which is expected to be taken under the law. The brief facts without giving much details and as necessary for disposal of this appeal are that, the company which has under gone winding up proceedings was allotted the land in question initially on 31-9-1998, but the same was cancelled. Again on an application, the provisional allotment was made on 13-3-2000 on certain conditions. Initially, a sum of rupees 30 lakhs was paid apart from earnest money deposit of rupees 10 lakhs. Admittedly, even at the stage of appeal nothing has been pointed out about compliance on the part of the company in regard to the discharge of the amount as agreed to. There have been certain other allotments with which we are not concerned and the same were cancelled and that has become final. There have been thus some adjustments in regard to the payments already made. Subsequently, having regard to the default on the part of the company, according to the appellant, they passed the orders of cancellation on 31-1-2006. These orders were again assailed in this Court and the same were set at naught, and therefore, it has compelled the appellant to file the present application for effecting the cancellation of allotment, since the proceedings are pending in this Court and the company is already under liquidation proceedings. Meanwhile, a third party, who was an applicant in CA.No.1801 of 2006, who was already allotted the main unit sought for allotting this land to it. The learned Single Judge by going into various factors and attributing contributory factor to the appellant itself on its failure to make proper demands and take steps, did not accede to the request. While so, the learned Single Judge followed the principles laid down in Indu Kakka v. Haryana State I.D.C.Ltd[1] a n d Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. V. U.T.Chandigarh[2]. Accordingly, sought to proceed in view of the facts and circumstances the default even if any on the part of the company could not be considered as a fatal issue to take the extreme step of resumption of the land. Thus, ultimately by giving an option to the 3rd party who filed the application in C.A.No.1801 of 2006 to give a preference in case of any proposal to dispose of the property in question. We have considered all the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and as well as the respondents and nothing new nor any other aspect has been pointed out in addition to the submissions already made nor to contradict in any manner either on law or on facts in regard to the reasons given by the learned Single judge and the ultimate findings. In the circumstances, we do not find any merits in the above appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B PRAKASH RAO,J) _______________ (R.KANTHA RAO,J) DATE:14-03-2011 GRK [1] AIR 1999 SC 296 [2] (2004) 2 SCC 130