THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.9054, 9806 and 14147 of 2006 July 16, 2010 Between: G.V.Vijaya Kumar, S/o.Satyanarayana And others …Petitioners And The A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.9054, 9806 and 14147 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: These three writ petitions are being disposed of by common order as the respondents are the same and the order impugned came to be issued in almost similar background of the case. In addition, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is similar. The brief background in each case may be noticed as follows. W.P.No.9054 of 2006 On an application made by petitioner for allotment of plot in Autonagar, Guntur, for setting up of automobile spares business, second respondent by proceedings dated 21.1.1991, allotted plot No.31, admeasuring 407.88 Sq.Mtrs. An agreement was entered into between Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) and petitioner and later on 17.4.2002 registered sale deed was executed. Petitioner allegedly could not commence the construction due to financial difficulties. Second respondent issued a show cause notice on 14.3.2006 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why allotment should not be cancelled. Petitioner submitted explanation on 25.3.2006. Thereafter by impugned order dated 13.4.2006, second respondent cancelled the allotment and directed the petitioner to surrender vacant possession. W.P.No.9806 of 2006 APIIC allotted industrial plot No.455 admeasuring 503.77 Sq.Mtrs., Phase-I and II, Autonagar, Guntur, in favour of one Mohammed Zabeer, vide allotment letter dated 16.10.1980, for establishment of auto mechanic works. An agreement was entered into between APIIC and the allottee on 22.1.1983 and a registered sale deed was executed on 11.3.1998. After death of the said allottee, his legal heirs sold the plot to petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.3,86,000/- under registered sale deed dated 12.4.2005. Petitioner applied for building permission to competent authority. Statedly APIIC collected fee and accepted change of ownership subject to the petitioner using the plot for industrial purpose. By proceedings dated 25.5.2005 he was granted approval for construction of ground floor and first floor industrial building permitting to commence the construction from 21.1.2006 onwards. In the mean while, Zonal Manager, APIIC, issued show cause notice on 04.10.2005 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the allotment should not be cancelled for alleged breach of conditions of allotment. The petitioner submitted explanation on 10.11.2005 informing that the construction is likely to be completed within three months and requested to drop further enquiry. Thereafter by impugned order dated 25.4.2006, respondent cancelled allotment on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish proposed industry, that he failed to obtain building permission and that he failed to erect machinery for setting up of industry. W.P.No.14147 of 2006 On an application made by petitioner for allotment of plot for setting up of used motor spare parts shop at Autonagar, Guntur, by allotment letter dated 20.11.1976, petitioner was allotted plot. APIIC entered into agreement with petitioner and subsequently executed registered sale deed. Allegedly petitioner could not commence the business due to financial difficulties. The Zonal Manager, APIIC, therefore issued a show cause notice dated 28.4.2006 and cancelled the allotment by proceedings dated 26.6.2006. Case of APIIC The General Manager (Law), APIIC, filed counter affidavits, containing similar averments. The writ petitions are opposed on the ground that they are not maintainable, that the dispute is in the realm of non-statutory contract in relation to commercial transaction. Secondly it is settled that petitioners failed to utilize the land allotted for specific purpose, which defeated the object of such allotment. The other contentions raised by petitioners are denied. The counsel for petitioners and Standing Counsel for APIIC made their submissions, when these cases were heard along with a batch of cases in W.P.No.7320 of 2006 and batch. In the judgment delivered on 16.7.2010 in the said batch, this Court overruled the objection of APIIC on the question of maintainability. The other aspects are also decided against APIIC. The conclusions and reasons therein are applicable to the facts and issues in these cases as well. It may be reiterated that when once APIIC executed sale deeds either in favour of original allottees or subsequent purchasers, who purchased the plots with the permission of APIIC (who have also accepted for change of ownership), the issue goes out of the realm of contract. Being a public authority, APIIC cannot act arbitrarily and cancel the allotment having the effect of nullifying the registered sale deed transferring the title. In the judgment delivered by this Court referred herein above, it was held as follows. There is no denial that the agreement entered into by APIIC and the petitioners in these cases, does not contain any clause in the above terms nor clause 7 in the registered sale deed can be construed as “condition super added”. This Court is not able to countenance the submission of the counsel that the phrase in clause 7 of the sale deed reading “ … … shall use the said plots for the aforesaid purpose of putting up factory or factories duly permitted by the competent Authority and for no other purpose” should be construed as “super added clause”. As held by this Court in K.Gopal Reddy v Secretary, M/s.Vijaya Coop. House Buildings Society[1], when once sale deed is registered by the seller in favour of buyer, contract is concluded and no party can enforce sale agreement covenants. Therefore, this Court holds that insofar as these cases are concerned, APIIC has no such power or jurisdiction to cancel the allotment, which has effect of nullifying the sale deed. The writ petitions, for the above reasons, are allowed with costs. Advocate fee Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in each case. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July , 2010. YS [1] 2004 (2) ALT 538