IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24332 of 2001 Between: Ravilla Jhansi Lakshmi Bai, W/o Nageswara Rao, Komala Industries, Plot No.53 Industrial Estate, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd., Rep. byits Managing Director, Parishram Bhavanm 6th Floor, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Zonal Manager, A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited Vijayawda, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the proceedings in Lr. No. P.S>53/IE/NRT/2001, dt: 2-11-2001 on the file of Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Vijayawada as illegal, arbitrary and violoative of principles of natural justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.V.SIMHADRI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.24332 of 2001 ORDER The petitioner herein was allotted a plot situated in Industrial Estate at Narasaraopet, Guntur District admeasuring 1769.73 square meters by the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited. The possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner on 02-05-98 and thereafter on payment of entire sale consideration of Rs.3,04,760/- the Corporation executed a registered sale deed dated.27-11-1998 in favour of the petitioner. Initially the petitioner intended to start a Dall mill in the said plot. However, subsequently the petitioner wanted to start a hallow brick manufacturing unit and accordingly obtained the approval of the Corporation for change in the business. The Department of Industries, Government of A.P issued a certificate certifying that the petitioner’s unit of manufacturing hallow bricks, is a small scale industry. While the petitioner was proceeding with the said manufacturing process, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated.11-12-2000 alleging that the petitioner had constructed the factory in a part of the land instead of utilizing the entire plot allotted to her and calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the brick manufacturing industry required more open place than the factory building and there was no violation of conditions of allotment. Though the 2nd respondent kept quite for some time, a fresh show cause notice was issued on 26-06-2001 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the sale deed executed in her favour should not be cancelled and thereafter by order dated.03-11-2001 the allotment was cancelled duly determining the sale deed dated.27-11-1998. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the allotment of plot in favour of the petitioner being an outright sale and the entire sale consideration was paid, it is not open to the Corporation to cancel the allotment determining the registered sale deed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the petitioner had failed to construct the building as per the approved building plan and a major part of the land was kept vacant contrary to the conditions of sale and therefore the sale deed was rightly cancelled. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. It is clear from the material on record that the allotment of plot was made infavour of the petitioner on “outright sale basis” subject to the terms and conditions specified in the allotment order dated.02-12-1997. As per condition No.5 of the allotment order the petitioner should utilize the land for the purpose for which it is allotted before seeking the registration of the plot. It is also clear from the allotment order that the said allotment was made provisionally for setting up of Dall mill. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had paid the total consideration of Rs.3,18,552/- as stipulated in the order of allotment dated.02.12.1997 and thereafter the sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioner on 27-11-1998. Even prior to that the purpose of allotment was changed as per the request of the petitioner and in the sale deed itself it was specifically mentioned that the sale was for the purpose of setting up an industry for the manufacture of hallow bricks. The sale deed also shows that by the date of registration the vacant possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner and having constructed a building, she had gone into the production of hallow bricks. Clause No.7 of the sale deed further made it clear that by virtue of the sale deed the plot in question was transferred in favour of the petitioner with absolute right together with title, easements and all other rights. No other clause could be pointed out by the Corporation to show that the Corporation reserved any right in its favour in respect of the said plot. The specific case of the petitioner is that she had constructed the factory as per the sanctioned plan after obtaining necessary permission from the Industries Department and nothing could be placed before this Court to controvert the said plea. Having regard to the said undisputed fact and particularly in the absence of any clause under which the Corporation reserved a right in its favour to cancel the allotment, I find force in the contention of the petitioner that the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation is arbitrary and illegal. However, while placing reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Indu Kakkar Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd and another( [1]) the learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the action of the Corporation. A careful reading of the said judgment shows that the petitioner therein who was allotted a plot situated within the Industrial Complex, failed to establish the industrial unit within a period of three years as stipulated under Clause No.7 of the agreement. The said agreement also contained a clause reserving the right of the Corporation to call for a periodical report every six(6) months from the allottee about the progress and the implementation of the project and if the progress is found to be unsatisfactory to resume the plot. The petitioner therein could not take steps for implementation of the proposed industrial unit. Moreover it was a case where the allottee inducted a third party into the plot without obtaining the consent of the Corporation. In the circumstances it was held that the transferee had no locus standi to question the order of the resumption. The facts in the case on hand are entirely different. As noticed above this is a case where the petitioner was carrying on the manufacture of hallow bricks by the date of execution of the sale deed itself. That apart no right was reserved in favour of the Corporation for resumption of the land or for cancellation of the allotment. No other clause either in the allotment order or in the sale deed enabling the Corporation to cancel the sale deed on the ground that no buildings were constructed in the entire land could be pointed out by the respondents. It is also clear that the plot in question was registered in favour of the petitioner with absolute rights without reserving any right of cancellation. In the circumstances the impugned order dated.03.11.2001 being arbitrary and illegal is hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 27th JANUARY 2009 *TSNR [1] AIR 1999 SC 296