APHC010336522026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NOs: 873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 Bench Sr.No:- 11 [3584] M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders ...Appellant Vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 17th September 2026 Present: Advocate for Appellant: A Rajendra Babu Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): K Jyothi Prasad, Gangisetty Rajeswara rao, Standing Counsel For Agricultural Marketing Committees, Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon‟ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan) Since these appeals are preferred assailing common order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch, dated 24.02.2026, same are heard together and disposed of by way of common order. 2 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 2. By aforesaid order, learned Single Judge disposed of W.P.Nos.20324 of 2019 and 2171 of 2021, setting aside the impugned resolutions Nos.155 & 156 and the consequential order in R.C.No.940 of 2018, even dated 06.02.2019, allotting the subject plots in favour of the appellants herein and further dismissed Writ Petition Nos.18553 of 2019 & 18568 of 2019 preferred by them, seeking for delivery of subject plots. 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows: (a) Respondent No.5-Agriculture Market Committee conducted an open auction for allotment of plots in the newly developed market yard, comprising of Ac.23.60 cents in Sy.Nos.143, 144, 145, 147 & 148 of Guntur and one late Lal Chand Salesha, father of respondent No.6 herein, was allotted Plot No.121 and one Mangilal, respondent No.1 in W.A.No.924 of 2026, was allotted Plot No.122, which were admeasuring 233.333 sq. yards for a consideration of Rs.4,000/- each. The allotment was confirmed and sale deeds dated 16.11.1979 and 07.03.1980, respectively, were registered in their favour, subject to certain terms and conditions specified therein. 3 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 (b) It is stated that in May 2008, there was a massive fire accident, causing extensive damage to the shops within market yard; hence, plots were renumbered. Plot No.121 was renumbered as Plot No.B3/276 and Plot No.122 as Plot No.B3/277. Respondent No.5 also stated to have made fresh allotments in favour of licensed commission agents. Accordingly, one such allotment, Plot No.D4/533 was made in favour of appellant herein on 10.02.2010. The appellant in W.A.No.907 of 2026 also, by then, was operating as a commission agent holding a valid licence. Therefore, both the appellants made representations, one for exchange of plot from D4/533 to B3/276 and the other for allotment of vacant Plot No.B3/277. By resolution No.155, respondent No.5 acceded to the request of appellant herein for exchange of existing plot and by resolution No.156, allotted Plot No.B3/277 in favour of appellant in W.A.No.907 of 2026. Pursuantly, respondent No.5 issued consequential proceedings dated 06.02.2019. (C) As physical possession of said plots was not delivered, allottees filed W.P.Nos.18553 of 2019 & 18568 of 2019, respectively. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of on 04.12.2019, directing respondent No.5 herein to handover 4 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 respective plots within six weeks. At that juncture, son of original allottee, respondent No.6 herein, made a representation dated 06.12.2019 raising objections, besides filing W.A.No.5 of 2020 assailing the order dated 04.12.2019. Similarly, even other allotee, Mr. Mangilal also filed W.A.No.654 of 2021. Both appeals were allowed by setting aside order and judgment dated 04.12.2019 and matters were remitted for fresh consideration. (d) Subsequently, respondent No.6 filed W.P.No.20324 of 2019 challenging the inaction of respondent No.5-AMC in considering the representation dated 06.12.2019 and also to set aside the proceedings of allotment dated 06.02.2019 issued in favour of appellants. Likewise, even Mr. Mangilal filed W.P.No.2171 of 2021 assailing resolution No.156 and consequential allotment order dated 06.02.2019 issued in favour of appellants. In both the cases, interim orders were passed directing parties to maintain Status-Quo. Subsequently, there were certain other intervening circumstances with regard to the allegations of taking possession between the allottees, which led to filing of Writ Petition Nos.3673 of 2021, 32979 of 2023 and 20525 of 2024. The details of those proceedings are not 5 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 necessary for deciding present appeals and thus, are not referred to in detail. (E) In the Writ Petitions filed by original allottees, it was primarily contended that allotments could not have been cancelled without prior notice and without conducting enquiry in regard to the alleged violation of conditions of sale, and thus, it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. Further, it was pleaded that the allotment made in favour of appellants was vitiated as the same was not by way of auction. Both respondent No.5-AMC and appellants tried to justify the cancellation as well as subsequent allotments by pleading that there was violation of conditions envisaged in the sale; therefore, rightly the initial allotments were cancelled and the same were reallotted in favour of appellants, who were carrying on the business under a valid licence. (F) Learned Single Judge, considering aforesaid submissions and having summoned the original record from respondent No.5 to ascertain whether any enquiry was conducted before taking decision to cancel allotment and reallot, ultimately opined that though the initial allotment and execution of sale deed 6 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 with conditions did not confer absolute right of ownership over subject property in favour of the allottees, nevertheless, violation of conditions, if any, ought to have been enquired into by initiating appropriate enquiry and only after the original allottees were notified of such violation by issuing a notice, any decision could have been taken. Since the matter on record was found to be not suggesting any such course of action being adopted, it was opined that the cancellation of allotment was in violation of principles of natural justice. (g) Further, learned Single Judge has made passing observation whether the reallotment of plots on mere applications of the appellants would pass the muster of legal requirement or not has to be looked into once again. In these circumstances, the Writ Petitions filed by appellants seeking delivery of possession of subject plots were dismissed and other two Writ Petitions preferred by original allottees, assailing resolutions and consequential order of allotment in favour of appellants were allowed. However, respondent No.5 was granted liberty to conduct enquiry with regard to the violation of conditions of sale by allotees and thereafter, take a decision on merits. Aggrieved by the same, present appeals have been preferred. 7 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 4. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel appearing for appellants, mainly contended that since the original allottees did not conduct business by obtaining licence in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for brevity „Act, 1966‟), respondent No.5 rightly cancelled the allotment after conducting a due enquiry, and only thereafter, the plots were reallotted in favour of appellants. Therefore, learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the resolutions, followed by consequential allotment orders issued. He further contended that the original allotment in favour of allottees was conditional and did not confer absolute rights; therefore, respondent No.5, having found that conditions were violative by not setting up the business, rightly cancelled the allotments. 5. Further, learned counsel also tried to justify the action of respondent No.5 in reallotting the subject plots in favour of appellants by submitting that in view of fire accident occurred in the year 2008, there arose necessity for reallotment of the plots, as there was no ingress and egress to the plot initially allotted in favour of appellants herein, in overall interest, decision was taken to reallot subject plot, which cannot be found fault with. He further 8 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 tried to persuade that respondent No.6 herein and other allottee are not even residents of locality and never even made an attempt to set up the business, much less applying for licence, which is clearly apparent, as they did not even produce annual returns as required to be furnished in terms of provisions of Agriculture Market Committee Act. 6. Sri Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5-AMC, submits that after passing of the impugned common order, possession of both plots has been resumed from appellants and presently vests with the Agriculture Market Committee. Further, it is stated that they are contemplating to initiate enquiry as directed by learned Single Judge by issuing appropriate notices to the allottees. 7. Sri K Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the original allottees, while supporting the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, submitted that impugned decision of the Agricultural Market Committee is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice and further, subsequent allotment in favour of appellants, without conducting auction, is also vitiated. 9 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 Thus, the order of learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and therefore, pleaded for the dismissal of appeals. 8. We have gone through the record and also considered the submissions made above. 9. It is not in dispute that Plot Nos.121 & 122, renumbered as plot Nos.B3/276 & B3/277, were allotted in favour of allottees way back in the year 1975 and later, sale deeds were executed on 16.11.1979 and 07.03.1980, respectively. Of course, such allotment and execution of sale deeds were subject to certain conditions, such as, the allottees/purchasers should not use the plots for any other purpose other than notified, should construct shop over subject plots within the stipulated time after securing approval from the Agriculture Market Committee and the said plots should not be transferred, mortgaged or leased to any other persons and ultimately, AMC has retained power to cancel the allotment in case the conditions are violated. 10. Be that as it may, there was an accident at market yard in the year 2008, because of which, existing shops and godowns were burnt. The same necessitated respondent No.5 to rearrange the plots and accordingly, the market area was renumbered with 10 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 new plot numbers. Appellant herein was allotted Plot No.D4/533 in the year 2010 and whereas appellant in W.A.No.907 of 2026 was awaiting for such allotment, nevertheless both the appellants were operating business after securing licence. In that background, a request was made for allotment of the plots, which were otherwise initially allotted and sale deeds were executed in favour of unofficial respondents. 11. Respondent No.5 has specifically pleaded that in pursuance to report dated 04.02.2019 of the Supervisior of AMC, Guntur, which suggested that the unofficial respondents neither had any licence nor doing business transactions at the subject premise, a decision was taken to allot the subject plots in favour of appellants. Though respondent No.5 tried to justify their action, learned Single Judge, having gone through the original record, found that no such enquiry was ever conducted in a fair and transparent manner, much less after giving due notice to the effected allottees. Thus, the manner in which the allotments were cancelled and reallotted was found to be illegal. 12. The learned Single Judge has also considered the nature of allotment and the rights flowing through the sale deed in favour 11 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 of unofficial respondents and held that the allotment and the transfer was not absolute, therefore, respondent No.5 was well within its power to enquire whether there was any violation of conditions of sale. 13. It is apt to refer the following paragraphs, where specific findings have been recorded. “18. In the case on hand, the allottees paid some amount in consideration of allotment, but there was no transfer of absolute right of ownership over the property, an essential element of sale, and further, exercise of the componental rights have been barred, as is clear from the condition number (iv) noted above which states - that the purchaser shall not transfer or, subject to the conditions of this document, mortgage, sell or let out such plot to any bank or other person. The ownership retained by the allotter is clear. It is a mere allotment, that too, conditional. 29. As though it is a dispute only against the official authorities, the writ petitions were filed by the subsequent authorities vide W.P. Nos. 18553 of 2019 and 18568 of 2019 without making the original allottees as parties to the writ petitions. It is only after they filed writ appeals challenging the orders, the Division Bench, after being satisfied with the lapse, the orders initially passed directing handing over of physical possession were set aside and the writ petitions were restored for fresh hearing after impleading the allottees and giving them a chance of filing counter and hearing them. It is a sheer attempt made to bypass the procedure to overcome the difficulty of resisting the probable defence of the original allottees, though there were traces of dispute even by then. The A.M.C. also, without disclosing the actual dispute to the Court, allowed the orders to be passed in these writ petitions as though it is a mere failure in complying with the resolution and the proceedings of re- allotment for delivery of the plots. There seems some hurry in taking a resolution for re- allotment, but later somehow there was delay in passing the actual proceedings of re-allotment. Even thereafter, there 12 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 could not be actual physical delivery of the plots as stated above. Similarly, W.P. No. 20525 of 2024 was also filed by one of the re- allottees, i.e., M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, as though the official respondents were disturbing the business, again without making the allottee as a party, suppressing the real dispute and obtained interim order of status-quo. 30. Under these circumstances, the impugned resolution passed in a hurried manner without any notice, due enquiry and compliance of the conditions of the allotment of the plots; and consequential proceeding of re-allotment suffer from illegality and are liable to be set aside. However, the authority of the A.M.C. to be exercised as a consequence of failure to comply the conditions does not cease. The A.M.C. shall follow the due procedure, including observation of the principles of natural justice, and take a decision, on merits, after a thorough enquiry on hearing the parties likely to be affected on both sides. 31. As rightly contended by the allottees, during the course of arguments, and also admitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the A.M.C. in the written submissions, dt. 07.01.2026, the re-allotment of plots, if any, shall be made through public auction which is a normal mode adopted by public authorities, but was not followed in the present case. The re-allotment on mere applications of two individuals, though one by exchange, but the other by fresh allotment is obviously deviating the approved legal course which was adopted at the time of original allotments”. 14. Learned counsel for appellants could not point out anything in particular to show that before cancellation of the allotment, unofficial respondents were issued notices and only after conducting enquiry into the allegations of violation of conditions of sale, a decision was taken to cancel the allotments. Though he tried to lay much emphasis on the report of the Supervisor of AMC, Guntur, which formed the basis for passing impugned 13 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 resolution, learned Single Judge has rightly found that the same at no stretch of imagination can be construed to be a recommendation emanating from an enquiry conducted with prior notice to the affected parties. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submissions advanced above. 15. Given the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has rightly has set aside the resolutions Nos.155 & 156 and the consequential order even dated 06.02.2019, passed by respondent No.5, and thus, the same do not call for any interference. Further, learned Single Judge has also granted liberty to respondent No.5 to conduct enquiry afresh with regard to violation of conditions of sale and as it is stated that respondent No.5 is yet to initiate enquiry, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.5 to conclude the said exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is needless to say that respondent No.5 shall issue notices to unofficial respondents, specifying alleged violations and after providing due opportunity of filing objections and granting hearing to them as well as the appellants, appropriate decision be taken by passing speaking order. 14 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 16. With the aforesaid observations, all these Writ Appeals stand disposed of. No Costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending in these appeals, if any, shall stand closed. LISA GILL, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J ANS 15 HCJ & CGR, J W.A.Nos.873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 221 HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE LISA GILL THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT APPEAL NOs: 873, 874, 907 & 924 of 2026 Date: 17.09.2026 ANS