THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8379 of 2006 July 16, 2010 Between: M/s.Rakshit Durgs Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Ch.A.P.Rameswara Rao … Petitioner And The Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Vijayawada And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8379 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is a company engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of drugs and drug intermediates. The company filed instant writ petition impeaching the order dated 24.3.2006 of the first respondent, namely, Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial and Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC), Vijayawada, canceling the allotment of industrial plot in favour of third respondent as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the same. The brief fact of the matter is that Plot No.57-I, Industrial Development Area, Kondapalli, admeasuring 1,286.94 Sq.mts was allotted on 27.3.2000 by APIIC to third respondent at a cost of Rs.90/- per Sq.mtr. Third respondent paid Rs.1,15,825/- towards plot cost and Rs.77,217/- towards development charges on 14.4.2000. The same was followed by a sale agreement and development agreement between the third respondent and APIIC on 01.5.2000. On the same day, APIIC executed sale deed in favour of third respondent. The document was registered on 30.6.2000. First respondent granted construction permission to third respondent on 18.2.2005. One year thereafter, under registered sale deed dated 13.3.2006, petitioner purchased said industrial plot from third respondent for a sale consideration of Rs.6,98,000/-. While the petitioner was taking steps for constructing factory, third respondent was served with a copy of the caveat filed by first respondent in which it was mentioned that the allotment of industrial plot was cancelled on 24.3.2006. Petitioner contends that no notice was issued to the vendor and cancellation itself is illegal. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 raising objections regarding the maintainability of writ petition and justifying the cancellation on the ground that third respondent failed to implement the project for which the land was allotted by APIIC. It is also alleged that the third respondent illegally alienated the plot in favour of petitioner. This writ petition was heard along with W.P.No.7320 of 2006 and batch. Similar contentions were raised by APIIC with regard to maintainability of writ petitions. This Court by common order dated 16.7.2010 in the said batch has held that when once the sale deed is registered in favour of allottee, the cancellation of allotment would be arbitrary and in such an event, petition for judicial review is maintainable. Therefore, the objection of APIIC is unsustainable. Clause 6 of the sale deed executed by first respondent on behalf of APIIC that third respondent constructed factory building and gone into production of general engineering works (job works). Therefore, the cancellation on that ground is unsustainable. Secondly, there is no dispute that the allottee in whose favour conveyance is registered can always transfer the property to another industrial unit. If the purchase by the petitioner from the third respondent suffers from the defect of not obtaining prior permission of APIIC, it is always curable. As the petitioner purchased industrial plot for the purpose of setting up drug manufacturing unit, APIIC may not have any objection. Indeed the counsel submits that there are innumerable instances where APIIC permitted transfer of industrial plots/sheds by original allottees in favour of third parties for setting up of similar industrial units or different industrial units. Therefore, liberty is given to petitioner to approach APIIC and seek ratification of the transfer of property in favour of petitioner. Indeed as rightly pointed out by petitioner when once there is absolute sale by way of registered document in favour of third respondent any condition of inalienability is void and third respondent can always ignore such a clause in the sale deed as per Section 11 of Transfer of Property Act, 1872. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed declaring that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and giving liberty to petitioner to approach APIIC to complete the formality of seeking permission/ratification of the approval by the third respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July , 2010 YS