THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9627 of 2006 August 13, 2010 Between: K.Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.K.Sathi Raju … Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad ... Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9627 of 2006 ORDER: Petitioner assails the order/letter of the respondent dated 28.3.2006 whereby and whereunder purporting to exercise of the power reserved for them, the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) cancelled the allotment of industrial plot made to the petitioner more than a decade ago. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The petitioner is a mechanic. He applied for allotment of industrial plot to set up automobile workshop in Autonagar, Kakinada. By letter dated 29.4.2002, industrial plot admeasuring 443.02 Sq.Mts in S.No.104 (Part) of Sarpavaram Village in Kakinada, was allotted to petitioner for Rs.77,528/- on outright sale basis. The petitioner paid sale consideration including development charges. The possession was delivered to him on 10.5.2002. Respondent executed registered sale deed dated 29.8.2002. On the ground that the industrial plot was not utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted, respondent issued show cause notice dated 15.11.2005. In consequence thereof, respondent by impugned order dated 28.3.2006 cancelled the allotment. APIIC has not filed counter affidavit. But their Standing Counsel made submissions opposing the writ petition inter alia contending that writ petition is not maintainable as the dispute is in relation to the contract and that when the plot was not utilized for the purpose for which it was allotted, APIIC can cancel the allotment. The counsel for petitioner 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 petition, for the above reasons, is allowed with costs. Advocate fee Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) August , 2010 YS [1] 2004 (2) ALT 538