APHC010541702017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3748/2017 Between: 1. THE ELURU TOWN AUTOMOBILE MECHANICS ASSOCIATION,, ELURU, REP., BY ITS PRESIDENT, MAGANTI NAGABHUSHANAM, DOOR NO.19-1-15, GUNBAZAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. E D APIICL 5 ORS, REP., BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LTD., ZONAL OFFICE, KAKINADA-5, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE MANAGER AM APIIC SUBZONE ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR ELURU WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, - 6. THE SUBREGISTRAR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue an order, direction or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent authority vide Lr.No.ZM/APIIC/KKD/AN/ Eluru(Allot)/2013, dated 28.12.2016 cancelling the allotment made in favour of the Petitioner Association pertaining to Sy.Nos. 4/1 to 4/6, 511 to 5/2, 260/1, 260/2, 261, 262/1, 262/2, 263, 264/1 and 264/2 at Malkapuram village, Eluru Road, West Godavari District, and the registered agreement of sale No.8747/2007, dated 9.8.2007 and the registered sale deed document No.4701/2014, dated 11.06.2014, as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and in violation of provisions of Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act and to set aside the same and to issue consequential direction to the respondent authorities to refund the land acquisition award amount of Rs.59,79,986/- (Rupees fifty nine lakhs seventy nine thousand nine hundred and eighty six only) passed in Award No. 11/2013 and arbitrarily not to interfere with the activities of the petitioner Association and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMP 2849 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated. 03.02.2017 WPMP No. 4457 of 2017 in WP No.3748 of 2017 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP 4457 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent authority vide Lr.No.ZM/APIIC/KKD/AN/Eluru(Allot)/2013, dated 28.12.2016, pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 3 OF 2017(WPMP 8958 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To implead the proposed respondents 7 86 8 as respondents 7 86 8 in W.P.No.3748/2017 as well as in W.P.M.P.No.5547 / 2017 and pass such 3 IA NO: 7 OF 2017(WPMP 133855 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To direct the members of the respondent No.1 Association and there henchmen to stop any construction activity in the subject land covered under proceeding dated 28.12.2016 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS (AP) 2. RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM 3. A JAYANTHI 4. TURAGA SAI SURYA The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned Standing counsel appeared for respondents 1, 3 and 4 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for respondents 2, 5 and 6. 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Lr.No.ZM/APIIC/KKD/AN/Eluru(Allot)/2013, dated 28.12.2016 (Ex.P1), cancelling of allotment in favour of the petitioner, the above writ petition is filed. 4 3. Petitioner‟s association, represented by its President, filed the above writ petition. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, herein after referred to as „APIIC‟ rep by its Manager, executed an agreement of sale dated 08.08.2007 in favour of the petitioner for an extent of Ac.54.54 cents in Sy.Nos.4/1 to 4/6, 5/1 to 5/2, 260/1, 260/2, 261, 262/1, 262/2, 263, 264/1 and 264/2 at Malkapuram Village, Eluru Road, West Godavari District. Thereafter, a regular sale deed was executed on 11.06.2014 (Ex.P2) for a total extent of Ac.53.42 cents. In the sale deed, it was mentioned that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.41,38,764/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Four Only). The possession of the land was delivered to the petitioner on 10.08.2007. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, in turn, allotted land to its members and executed registered documents. 5. Be that as it may, a show cause notice dated 20.10.2016 was issued to the society. An explanation was submitted on 01.11.2016. Thereafter, a W.P.No.41560 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner challenging the Lr.No.ZM/APIIC/KKD/AN/Eluru(Allot)/2013, dated 15.11.2016, cancelling the allotment of land in an extent of Ac.54.54 cents at Malkapuram Village. The said writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order dated 15.11.2016. The matter was remitted to the respondents 3 and 4 therein to take a decision afresh. 6. Thereafter, by the proceedings impugned, the 3rd respondent cancelled the allotment of land in Sy.No.4/1 etc., in an extent of Ac.54.54 cents. The authority also cancelled the agreement of sale document No.8747/2007 dated 09.08.2007 and the sale deed document No.4701/2014, dated 11.06.2014. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that cancelling the document by the 4th respondent is contrary to the law declared by the learned single judge of the composite high court in Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd and 5 another vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others1 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and others vs. S.N.Raj Kumar and another2. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that since the petitioner failed to develop the land, in pursuance of the agreement of sale and sale deed, the authorities cancelled the document. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Indu Kakkar vs. Haryana SIDC Limited3. 9. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, due to the District Collector‟s intervention, the sizes of the plots were changed from the layout approved by APIIC and some more allotments were made. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner ought not to have changed the layout approved by APIIC. 11. Whether a registered sale deed executed by APIIC, the authority can cancel the sale deed; the answer is no longer res integra. The learned Single Judge of the Composite High Court in Ediga Chandrasekar Gowd case, considered the cancellation of a document deed by the APIIC authority, eventually set aside the proceedings by declaring the cancellation as null and void. 12. In S.N.Raj Kumar’s case, the Hon‟ble Apex Court considered cancellation of a sale deed by APIIC authorities observed at para-15 as follows: “We do not find any merit in any of the aforesaid arguments. In the first instance, it needs to be emphasised that there is no such 1 (2017) 4 ALD 12 2 (2018) 6 SCC 410 3 (1999) 2 SCC 37 6 condition of completion of construction within a period of two years in the sale deed. Such a condition was only in the allotment letter. However, after the said allotment, the appellant- Corporation not only received entire consideration but executed the sale deeds as well. In the sale deeds no such condition was stipulated. Therefore, the High Court is right in holding that after the sale of the property by the appellant-Corporation to the respondents, whereby the respondents acquired absolute marketable title to the property, the appellant- Corporation had no right to insist on the conditions mentioned in the allotment letter, which cease to have any effect after the execution of the sale deed.” 13. In fact, the Apex Court considered the judgment of Indu Kakkar and distinguished it. The Apex Court also held that the doctrine of proportionality put forth by the Corporation has no application to those cases. 14. In the case at hand, as narrated supra, an agreement of sale was entered into by Ex.P3 dated 08.08.2007. As seen from the affidavit, the petitioner society, in turn, executed different documents to its members. Of course, there is a change in the layout, and the number of allotments was increased to 410. However, a mere change of layout is no ground to cancel the document. The change of layout was necessitated due to the intervention of the District Collector to allot some plots in favour of marginal entrepreneurs. Though both the counsels, at the hearing, argued on different aspects, this court is of the considered opinion that all those aspects need not be adverted to because of the ratio laid down in S.N.Raj Kumar’s case. 15. Considering the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments, especially S.N.Raj Kumar’s case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the cancellation proceedings, impugned in the writ petition, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside. 7 16. Since the cancellation proceedings are set aside, the petitioner is entitled to the amount of Rs.59,79,986/- in Award No.11 of 2013. The respondent Corporation or the local authorities shall consider granting building permissions or other required permissions to establish industrial units to the members of the petitioner‟s association, strictly as per the Law. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated: 17.04.2025 SNI 8 184 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3748/2017 Dated: 17.04.2025 SNI