THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6629 of 2002 ORDER: The Agricultural Market Committee, Koratla, respondent No.4 herein, owned land in Survey Nos. 1365 and 1366. Part of it was divided into 18 plots of 100’ X 30’ each and was put to auction. The petitioners emerged as highest bidders for some of the plots in the auction conducted on 05.02.1973. Auction in their favour was confirmed in the year 1976 by the Market Committee. The sale of plots was for the purpose of construction of godowns by the purchasers. Substantial correspondence ensued as regards the lapse in construction of godowns. Ultimately it was only in the year 1983, the sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.4 has taken possession of the plots purchased by them forcibly without issuing any notice and without payment of any compensation. Respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit. The fact that the land was divided into plots and the plots were put to auction is admitted. Reference is made to various proceedings that have emanated from the office of Director of Marketing, respondent No.5 herein. It is admitted that the sale deeds were executed in the year 1983. It is, however, stated that the plots were resumed to the committee since the petitioners did not abide by the condition, namely the construction of godowns within the stipulated time. Heard Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.V.Narayana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Other respondents did not evince any interest in the matter. It is rather surprising that it took nearly 10 years for the Market Committee to execute the sale deeds in respect of the plots that were put to auction. It is, no doubt, true that a condition was incorporated in the sale deeds to the effect that the petitioners shall construct the godowns upon the plots purchased by them. However, no time limit is stipulated. Assuming that the petitioners have committed default, the Market Committee was not at all entitled to resume possession of the plots unilaterally. Since valuable civil rights have accrued to the parties on account of the sale deeds, any further action could have been either on the basis of any adjudication by the civil Court or by undertaking correspondence in accordance with law. The action of the respondents in resuming the plots cannot be countenanced. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and respondent No.4 is directed to restore possession of the plots purchased by the petitioners within a period of four (4) weeks from today. In default, they shall be under obligation to pay the rent at the rate of Rs.500/- per month per plot with effect from the date on which the possession was taken. In case the petitioners commit any default in complying with the obligations that arise under the conditions of sale or sale deed, it shall be open to the Market Committee to issue notice to the defaulting parties and take necessary action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:17.03.2010. kdl