THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8942 of 2006 (Dated : 24-12-2010) Between: Sri Mandapati Rajendra Prasad …Petitioner A n d A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8942 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Mandapati Rajendra Prasad seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring Letter bearing NO.P-2/B-5/SC AREA/AN/GNT/96, dt.19.4.2006 issued by the respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the writ petitioner, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is :- The petitioner is running an automobile repairing workshop. On coming to know that APIIC Ltd.-1st respondent has been developing park at Pedakakani, he submitted an application dated 6.10.1995 for allotment of land for his automobile repairing workshop. The respondent considered his application and allotted 1121.82 sq. mtrs. in Plot No.2, Block No.5, Shopping Complex, Reserved Area, vide allotment order No.AZM/AN/GNT/SC.AREA/96-97, dt.26.3.1996. The petitioner paid Rs.2,01,978/-towards cost of the land as well as development charges. He has been put in possession of the land on 23.7.1996. The respondent has not provided any infrastructure such as formation of pacca roads, drainage, water and power supply. The structure put up by the petitioner came to be collapsed due to heavy gale in the year 2004. The petitioner made efforts to restart the unit, but the respondent failed to extend any cooperation. The delay in restarting the unit is because of the indifferent attitude of the respondent. The respondent, having received the consideration, cannot cancel the allotment unilaterally. Therefore, letter No.P-2/B-5/SC AREA/AN/GNT/96, dt.19.4.2006 cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. 3. Rule nisi came to be issued on 27.4.2006. The respondent filed counter affidavit. 4. A.Rashmi, General Manager (Law) of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of the terms and conditions of the contract in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by raising disputed questions of fact. The petitioner does not have crystallized enforceable legal right that can be sought to be enforced by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Infotech Enterprises Ltd. v. BSNL laid down the law to the effect that a contract relating to allotment of land by the APIIC, which is subsequently cancelled cannot be subject matter of writ proceeding and that the remedy would be to avail the common law remedy. The respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 5-9-58/B, 6h Floor, Parishrama Bhavan, Fathemaidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and it is wholly owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The main objects of the Corporation are; acquisition of lands, development of lands providing with infrastructure facilities in to Industrial Area in the state of Andhra Pradesh, allotment of plots/sheds to entrepreneurs in the industrial areas for industrial purposes. The allegation that this respondent has not provided any infrastructure facilities is baseless and far from truth. All the required amenities/ infrastructure had been provided by this respondent to enable the petitioner to establish his unit at Auto Nagar, Guntur. Even after lapse of 9 years from the date of allotment, the petitioner failed to establish the unit and thereby, violated the terms and conditions of allotment. This respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 13.12.2005 before issuing the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. Cancellation of allotment in favour of the petitioner has been done in terms of the contract itself. Para 6 of the counter affidavit need to be noted and it is thus:- “6. I submit that the contention of the petitioner that the action of the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires of its powers, is untenable. The cancellation of allotment was done by the APIIC in terms of the contract itself, by invoking the clause that permits resumption of plot where the allottee fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment, as had happened in the instant case. In the present case, though the petitioner was given possession of the land, nothing had been done by him, in compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract. No construction activity was commenced and the project was not implemented, even till the time of cancellation. The very purpose for which the allotments were made has been effectively defeated by the petitioner. The allottee being permitted to retain the land in an idle state, would amount to granting a premium for such default, thereby effectively defeating the very objective of Industrial development. This, apart from frustrating the very concept of development of an industrial area, it would result in heavy injury to the public cause. It would also amount to denial and deprivation of land to some other genuine entrepreneur/industry, for effective industrial use. Further, keeping such plots vacant for such a long period of time would directly result in the flight of capital, investment, trade and industry from Andhra Pradesh to other states. Keeping in view the liberalized economic policy, prompt and effective utilization of land allotted for industrial use is very much essential in the interest of public cause, providing employment and a revenue generation.” 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. The issue involved in this writ petition is: Whether the respondent after execution of the registered sale deed is empowered to cancel the registered sale deed on the ground that the land is not put to use ? 7. The counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by common order passed in W.P.No.7320 of 2006 and batch dated 16.7.2010 and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. A Photostat copy of the order passed in W.P.No.7320 of 2006 and batch is placed on record. It has been held in the above-referred common order 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 another purpose” should be construed as upper added clause”. As held by this Court in K.Gopal Reddy, 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.” 8. For the reasons recorded in the above W.P.No.7320 of 2006 & batch, this writ petition is also allowed. No costs. ____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt: 24.12.2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.8942 of 2006 (Dated : 24-12-2010)