APHC010385772019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.18553 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, Guntur and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. A. Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents: 1. Penumaka Venkata Rao 2. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees 3. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) 4. B. Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C. ) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.18553 of 2019 Sri Venkateswara Traders, Guntur The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: A. Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents: Penumaka Venkata Rao Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) B. Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C. ) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural APHC010385812019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.18568 of 2019 Between: M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. A. Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents: 1. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees 2. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) 3. B. Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C. The Court made the following: 2 W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.18568 of 2019 Sri Surya Chillies Traders The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: A. Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents: Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C.) The Court made the following: BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural APHC010422502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.20324 of 2019 Between: Pruthvi Raj Sand and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Jamadagni Chittala Counsel for the respondents: 1. A. Rajendra Babu 2. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees 3. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) 4. B. Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C.) The Court made the following: 3 W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.20324 of 2019 The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Chittala respondents: A. Rajendra Babu Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) B. Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C.) The Court made the following: BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural APHC010031002021 IN THE HIGH Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.2171 of 2021 Between: Mangilal and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Jamadagni Chittala Counsel for the respondents: 1. K. Madhava Reddy 2. G.P. for Revenue 3. B. Prakasam 4. A.Rajendra Babu 5. G.P. for Agriculture 6. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the following: 4 W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.2171 of 2021 The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Chittala Counsel for the respondents: K. Madhava Reddy G.P. for Revenue A.Rajendra Babu G.P. for Agriculture Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the following: BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural APHC010052442021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the twenty fourth day The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.3673 of 2021 Between: Pruthvi Raj Sand and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Jamadagni Chittala Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Revenue 2. G.P. for Agriculture 3. M. Manohar Reddy (S.C. for G.M.C.) 4. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the 5 W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.3673 of 2021 The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents petitioner: Chittala Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Revenue G.P. for Agriculture Manohar Reddy (S.C. for G.M.C.) Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Agricultural Marketing Committees The Court made the following: BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Agricultural APHC010641062023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Between: Pruthvi Raj Sand and others and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Jamadagni Chittala Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Home (A.P.) 2. A. Rajendra Babu 3. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees 4. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) 5. B. Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C.) The Court made the following: 6 W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.32979 of 2023 Pruthvi Raj Sand and others ...Petitioners The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Chittala Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Home (A.P.) Rajendra Babu Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C.) The Court made the following: BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioners ...Respondents Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural APHC010401112024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.20525 of 2024 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. A. Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Agriculture 2. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees 3. Jamadagni Chittala The Court made the following: 7 W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.20525 of 2024 M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Agriculture Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees Chittala The Court made the following: BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch PRADESH [3311] Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Petitioner ...Respondents Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural 8 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch COMMON ORDER: All these writ petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.18553 of 2019, 18568 of 2019, 20324 of 2019, 2171 of 2021, 3673 of 2021, 32979 of 2023 and W.P.No.20525 of 2024, are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the subject issue in all these writ petitions is similar, the writ petitions were disposed of by a common order. Writ Petition Petitioner Main prayer W.P.No.18553/2019 M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders For delivery of possession of plot No.B3/276. W.P.No.18568/2019 M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders For delivery of possession of plot No.B3/277. W.P.No.20324/2019 Pruthvi Raj Sand To declare Rc.No.940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019 as illegal and not to dispossess from plot No.B3/276. W.P.No.2171/2021 Mangilal To declare resolution No.156 and the consequential Rc.No.940/2018, dt. 06-02-2019 as illegal and to survey and fix boundaries of plot No.B3/277. W.P.No.3673/2021 Pruthvi Raj Sand To survey and fix boundaries of plot No.121 and discreetly enquire re-numbering of plot No.121. 9 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch W.P.No.32979/2023 Pruthvi Raj Sand & his son To declare action of the A.M.C. allowing M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders into plot No.B3/276 and police threatening petitioners to settle the issue as illegal. W.P.No.20525/2024 M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders To declare seizure of plot No.B3/276 by respondents as illegal and to permit the petitioner to continue to do business therein. W.P.No.22264/2020 (dismissed as withdrawn) Mangilal To prevent high- handed dispossession from plot No.B3/277. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: a. In the year 1975, the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur, (in short, ‘A.M.C.’) sought to develop the commercial infrastructure of the market yard in the land, approximately, Ac. 23.60 cents, situated in Survey Numbers 143, 144, 145, 147, and 148 of Guntur. In an open auction held, several individuals successfully bid for plots, paying the full sale consideration to the A.M.C. b. Among the successful bidders in the open auction conducted on 31.10.1975, by the A.M.C. were late Lal Chand Salesha, S/o. Bastiramji, Guntur (L.Ch. Salesha is father of Pruthvi Raj Sand) who bid for plot No. 121 to an extent of 233 & 1/3 square yards and Mangilal, S/o. Perajwalji, who bid for plot No. 122 to the same extent of land for 10 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch Rs.4,000/- each. The A.M.C. and the Chairman of A.M.C., passed a resolution No. 403, dt. 21.12.1975, confirming the sale of all plots. c. Thereafter, the A.M.C. executed a registered sale deed, dt. 16.11.1979, bearing document No. 1313/1980 for the plot No. 121 in favour of Lal Chand Salesha, and a registered sale deed dt. 07.03.1980, bearing document No. 1318/1980 for the plot No. 122 in favour of Mangilal. They were put in possession of their respective plots. d. The sale deeds are subject to the following specific conditions: - (i). The purchaser should not use the plot except for the notified commodities. (ii). The purchaser should construct shop, godown, all structures in the plot within the time stipulated and duly designed / approved by the A.M.C. (iii). The purchaser should take approval for construction of any structure in the plot from Municipality or Gram Panchayat, and pay taxes to the Municipality or Gram Panchayat. (iv). 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. If shop or godown is not constructed in such plot as per the approved type design within the time stipulated by the A.M.C., the A.M.C. has right to get such vacant plot re-transferred to it at the price fixed by it and take its possession. (v). After completion of the structures as per the approved design and within the time stipulated by the A.M.C., if for any reason they are intended to be transferred, such transfer shall be made with permission 11 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch of the A.M.C. Such transferee is also bound by these conditions. The transfer without such permission is invalid. (vi). The purchasers shall bear the taxes payable to the municipality or Gram Panchayat etc. from the date of the sale deed. The A.M.C. has no obligation to pay such taxes. (vii). The A.M.C. has retained power to make rules necessary for proper functioning of the market yard, in case if any problems arise in its maintenance in future.” e. In May, 2008, there was a massive fire accident, causing extensive damage to shops, godowns and market infrastructure in the market yard. In the aftermath of this disaster, the A.M.C. re-numbered the plots. f. The plot No. 121 was re-numbered as plot No. B3/276. The plot No. 122, was re-numbered as plot No. B3/277. The A.M.C. made fresh allotments of other plots to licenced commission agents. One such allotment of plot No. D4/533 was made on 10.02.2010 to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, Guntur. This firm operated as a commission agent holding a renewed licence for the period 2018-2023. Likewise, M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders also operated as a commission agent holding a licence for the period of 2018-2023. g. The aforesaid two commission agent firms submitted separate representations to the A.M.C. seeking allotment of plots. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, in its representation dt. 01.02.2019, stated that the firm was doing business in the plot No. D4/533 where it was facing some problems and requested to allot the vacant plot No. B3/276. M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders, in its representation dt. 28.01.2019, 12 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch stated that it had licence and that it was facing problems as it had no plot and requested to allot the vacant plot No. B3/277. h. In response to these representations, on 06.02.2019, the A.M.C. passed a resolution No.155 authorising allotment of plot No. B3/276 to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders in exchange of its plot No. D4/533 and another resolution No.156 authorising allotment of plot No.B3/277 to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders. Consequently, the A.M.C. issued proceedings in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019 allotting their respective plots. 3a. On 18.11.2019, W.P. No. 18553 of 2019 was filed by M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders for not handing over physical possession of plot No. B3/276 to it in pursuance of the resolution No. 155, dt. 06.02.2019 and the proceedings dt. 06.02.2019 in Rc.No.940/2018 and sought direction to the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 to hand over the plot to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that after allotment of shop No. B3/276, the legal right in it stands vested on the petitioner and the right of retaining possession of shop No. D4/533 is ceased and that the petitioner had made a representation, dt. 05.03.2019, to the A.M.C., for handing over physical possession of plot No. B3/276, but the request remained unheeded, though the rent in relation to that plot was received under receipt No. 103, dt. 22.02.2019. The petitioner further contended that the Act and the Rules enjoin an obligation on the commission agents to arrange storage facilities brought for sale and therefore, the A.M.C. has an obligation to provide shop to the commission agent and give effect to the decisions of the A.M.C., but the A.M.C. failed to discharge its obligations. 13 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch b. On 18.11.2019, W.P.No.18568 of 2019 was filed by M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders for not handing over physical possession of plot No.B3/277 to it in pursuance of the resolution No.156, dt. 06.02.2019 and the proceedings dt. 06.02.2019 in Rc.No. 940/2018 and sought direction to the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 to hand over the plot to the petitioner, with pleadings similar to W.P.No.18553 of 2019 regarding obligation to deliver physical possession of the subject shop by the A.M.C. c. On the representation of the standing counsel for the A.M.C. that six weeks’ time was required to handover the petitioners their respective plots, both the writ petitions, i.e., W.P. Nos. 18553 and 18568 of 2019, were disposed of on 04.12.2019, directing the A.M.C. to handover their plots within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. d. Pruthvi Raj Sand was aggrieved by the order for obtaining it without adding him as a party to W.P. No. 18553 of 2019. On coming to know about the order in this writ petition, he allegedly approached the A.M.C. and also sent a representation, dt. 06.12.2019, to the Commissioner and Director of Agricultural & Marketing, Guntur, through registered post appraising the details of purchase of the plot etc. e. Shortly thereafter, almost simultaneously, Pruthvi Raj Sand took legal recourse by filing W.P. No. 20324 of 2019, on 12.12.2019, challenging the proceedings in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019. He also filed a writ appeal in W.A. No. 05 of 2020, on 31.12.2019, challenging the order, dt. 04.12.2019, in W.P. No. 18553 of 2019, in which he was not added as a party. The Division Bench, by order, dt. 14 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch 18.02.2021, set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. f. Similarly, Mangilal filed W.P. No. 2171 of 2021, on 28.01.2021, challenging the proceedings in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019. He also filed a writ appeal in W.A. No. 654 of 2021, on 05.12.2021, challenging the order dt. 04.12.2019 in W.P. No. 18568 of 2019, in which he was not added as a party. W.P.No.2171 of 2021 was directed to be posted along with W.A. No. 654 of 2021. On 21.03.2023, the writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order in W.P. No. 18568 of 2019 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and W.P. No. 2171 of 2021 was directed to be posted along with W.P. No. 18568 of 2019. g. The respondents Nos. 4 & 5 filed, on 14.02.2022, a counter in W.P. No. 18553 of 2019 with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: On an application, dt. 28.01.2019 (sic. 01.02.2019), of the petitioner to allot the vacant plot No. B3/276 in exchange of its plot No. D4/533, as per the instructions of the then Person-in-charge of the A.M.C., to examine and initiate necessary action, the Secretary instructed the Supervisor concerned who submitted a report that Lal Chand Salesha had not been doing business by then and that his licence had expired long ago and it may be allotted to another, instead of keeping it vacant. If the plot is allotted, the A.M.C. gets annual rent. Thus, the request of the petitioner was approved by the A.M.C. and a resolution No.155 was passed in its meeting No. 7/2018-19 held on 06.02.2019. During the previous season of the business, the plot No. B3/276 was utilized by some other commission agent due to huge demand and it was vacant. Since the petitioner is holding the plot No. 15 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch D4/533, he continues to hold it till the alternative plot is handed over. These respondents took action to get the plot No. B3/276 vacated by the other agent who held it in the last season. There is no failure in discharging the statutory obligation under Rule 66 of the Rules, 1969 by the A.M.C. since the petitioner is enjoying the original plot with all rights as per Rule 67 of the Rules, 1969. Arrangement of storage etc., are the responsibilities of a commission agent. Without any demand, soon after re-allotment, the petitioner voluntarily paid rent of Rs.10,376/- on 22.09.2019 for the plot No. B3/276 for the year 2018-19 without taking possession. The petitioner has not paid the rent from the year 2019-20 for the plot No. D4/533 and plot No. B3/276 but, smoothly doing business in plot No. D4/533. As per the order dt. 04.12.2019, in this petition, the plot was handed over. Pruthvi Raj Sand filed W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 to suspend the proceedings vide Rc.No. 940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019, of the A.M.C. As the allottee failed to perform his business for the past fifteen years, all the rights over the plot have ceased and the plot shall be under the absolute possession of the A.M.C. which can allot to another as per G.O. Ms. No. 260, Agriculture & Cooperation (AM-IV) Department, dt. 28.09.2010. After the High Court granted an interim order of status quo in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 on 20.12.2019, the A.M.C. filed a counter affidavit along with petition to vacate the interim order and also a rejoinder to the reply affidavit. On the appeal by Pruthvi Raj Sand, this writ petition was remanded. That apart, he filed W.P.No. 3673 of 2021 to conduct survey and fix the boundaries of plot No. 121 etc. On 22.02.2021, in I.A. No.1 of 2021 therein, an interim order was passed directing the respondents Nos. 8 to 10 therein to conduct the survey. Basing on the order, the A.M.C., requested the Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records, the District Collector, Guntur, by letter Rc. No. 556 of 2019, dt. 19.03.2021, to conduct survey. 16 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders also requested the A.M.C. to conduct survey and fix the boundaries. Under these facts and circumstances, the petition in W.P. No. 18553 of 2019 may be dismissed. h. The respondents Nos. 4 & 5 filed, on 30.04.2024, a counter in W.P. No. 18568 of 2019 with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: Since the A.M.C. requested time to hand over the plot No. B3/277 allotted to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders, this petition was disposed of on 04.12.2019, directing the A.M.C. to hand over the plot within the stipulated time. The contempt case in C.C. No. 459 of 2020 filed by the petitioner was closed on 29.01.2021 on reporting compliance of the order on 16.11.2020. On appeal filed by Mangilal, vide W.A. No. 654 of 2021, as per the order dt. 21.03.2023, this petition was remanded for fresh consideration. Mangilal was not doing business for the last 12 years and violated the terms of the registered deed and G.O. Ms. No.260, dt. 28.09.2010, as per which, if any licenced commission agent does not conduct business for a continuous period of two years, the licence is deemed to be cancelled. He did not submit any monthly returns to the A.M.C. as required under Section 12A of the Act, 1966 or the account books as required under Section 17C of the said Act. Under the sale deed, dt. 07.03.1980, plot No.122 is merely registered in favour of the allottee. The A.M.C. is the original owner and competent to resume possession of the plot for violation of the terms. It is incorrect that Mangilal is in possession and enjoyment of the plot. In the fire accident occurred on 03.05.2008, the plot No. 122 was also gutted in the fire. The insurance companies paid amount to the concerned commission agents as per the A.M.C. records. Mangilal did not claim any amount. It is evident that he was not doing business. The existing plots were constructed by the A.M.C. after the fire accident. The 17 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch registered plot No.122 and the existing plot No. B3/277 are not one and the same. Mangilal has no right over plot No. B3/277 allotted to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders by following due procedure. Mangilal filed W.P. No. 22264 of 2020. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn seeking permission to file a comprehensive writ petition. Mangilal filed another writ petition, W.P. No. 2171 of 2021. On 01.10.2021, an interim order was passed in I.A. No. 2 of 2021 therein directing to conduct survey and fix boundaries of plot No.122. The petitioner requested the A.M.C. to conduct survey and fix the boundaries of plot No. 122, the A.M.C. requested the Assistant Director, Survey & Land Records, District Collector’s office, Guntur, vide letter Rc. No. 540/2019, dt. 28.01.2021, marking its copy to Mangilal and also the Sub-Registrar, Nallapadu, vide letter Rc. No. 540/2019, dt. 28.01.2021, enclosing copies of the registered sale deeds. The City Planner, M.C., Guntur, submitted an endorsement, vide Roc. No. 671317/2022/G4, dt. 09.06.2022, stating that because there is no approved plan of the plot No.122 and moreover, it is a small extent of 233 1/3 Sq. Yds. out of total large extent of Ac. 20.60 cents extending over different survey numbers, without reference to any particular point of place at the time of registration, it was not possible to fix up the boundaries. The petition may be disposed of by passing an appropriate order. 4a. Pruthvi Raj Sand filed W.P. No. 20324 of 2019, on 12.12.2019, alleging inaction on the representation, dt. 06.12.2019, to set aside the proceedings in R.C. No. 940/2018, dt.06.02.2019 allotting the plot No. B3/276 to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders as illegal, claiming that the petitioner is its owner but the proceedings had been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and consequently to direct the A.M.C. / respondent No.4 and the Chairman, A.M.C. / respondent No.5 18 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch not to dispossess the petitioner from the above shop. On 20.12.2019, this High Court granted interim direction to maintain status quo. The petitioner stated that his father had been in continuous possession of the plot No. 121 till he died on 17.05.2005 and thereafter, being the only legal heir, he has been continuing in possession of the plot bearing No. 121, subsequently changed to number B3/276. It is further contended that on execution of a registered sale deed, the rights over the plot were transferred under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the Act, 1966 and the Rules, 1969 have not provided any specific procedure of allotment of plots in the market yard and that under the guise of the order impugned in this petition, the A.M.C. is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject plot. b. The respondent No.6 / Sri Venkateswara Traders filed a counter in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 on 31.12.2019 with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The relief in the writ petition involves right of ownership based on a sale deed which enables the A.M.C. to recover possession of the plot and the petitioner has no right to recover the plot. Without right, the writ of mandamus cannot be granted. The A.M.C. allotted the plot No. B3/276 in exchange of the plot No. D4/533 strictly in accordance with law. This respondent surrendered plot No. D4/533 to the A.M.C. Consequently, the A.M.C. has an obligation to put this respondent in possession of the plot No. B3/276. This respondent filed W.P. No. 18553 of 2019 (details are omitted to avoid repetition). When the A.M.C. had taken possession of the subject plot due to violation of the conditions, the petitioner ought to have agitated rights before appropriate forum, but cannot file writ petition. 19 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch c. The respondent No.4 / the A.M.C. filed a counter affidavit in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 on 30.01.2020, along with a petition to vacate the interim order, with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The original allottee shifted to the native state long back and none among his family members has been living in the state of A.P. The plot No. 121 was allotted in the old market yard in Ac. 5.00 cents of land to the father of the petitioner and not to the petitioner. After shifting the old market yard to the present new market yard situated in Ac. 50.00 cents of land, there was a fire accident. The plot No.121 was renumbered as B3/276. It is incorrect that the petitioner is running business in the plot after the demise of his father. The petitioner has no legal right to inherit the plot as the property belongs to the government through the A.M.C. After expiry of the licence of the petitioner, granted for two years, right over the property was lost. The petitioner was not doing business in plot No. B3/276 for 15 years and did not get the licence renewed to do the business as commission agent and therefore, the A.M.C. took the possession of the plot, as per G.O. Ms. No. 260, dt. 28.09.2010 and the plot was allotted to another commission agent, M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders. By virtue of the order, dt. 04.12.2019, in W.P. No. 18553 of 2019, the A.M.C. was directed to hand over possession of the plot to the subsequent allottee. The interim order may be vacated and the writ petition may be dismissed. d. A reply affidavit was filed in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019, on 17.02.2020, by the petitioner / Pruthvi Raj Sand, along with certain documents, with the averments briefly stated as follows: It is denied that the licence expired 15 years ago and was not renewed and that the A.M.C. had taken possession of the plot as no 20 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch family member is living in Andhra Pradesh. After the death of Lal Chand Salesha on 17.05.2005, the petitioner has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the plot and doing business using the trade name, M/s. Sri Gayatri Chillies. After registering the firm in the name of Siva Durga Traders, fresh licence was applied. The A.M.C. issued proceedings in Rc. No. 661/2008, dt. 16.08.2019, addressing to the respondent No.2 for granting prior permission for new commission agents’ licence in the A.M.C., showing the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 25, out of 26 applicants. It falsifies that the petitioner was not available and his address could not be secured in spite of the efforts of the official respondents. The petitioner annexed electricity bills relating to this shop paid in the name of Sri Gayatri Chillies. He has been running the business in that name as the application for granting new licence is pending. The A.M.C. stated that the plot was taken into possession without disclosing time and manner of taking. The condition No.4 in the sale deed enables the A.M.C. to take back the plot, for violation of the conditions, by paying the amount as decided by the A.M.C. Since the title of the father of the petitioner, on his death, was succeeded by the petitioner through inheritance, the allotment of the subject plot to the respondent No.6 by the A.M.C. is illegal. The writ petition may be allowed imposing exemplary costs on the respondents. e. The respondents Nos. 4 & 5 filed a re-joinder affidavit in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019, on 26.02.2020, to the reply affidavit of the petitioner with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The reply affidavit does not disclose any valid or substantial grounds to grant the relief in the writ petition. It is false that the son of the petitioner has been doing business in the disputed plot in the name and style of M/s. Sri Gayatri Chillies by using the name of Siva Durga 21 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch Traders. M/s. Sri Gayatri Chillies, commission agent, is not at all in existence in the entire market yard, Guntur. The petitioner filed a recent electrical consumption bill, dt. 21.12.2019, along with the reply affidavit to pave a false way as if it were a gospel truth. Letter in Rc. No. 661/2018, dt. 16.08.2019, filed with the reply affidavit, showing the name of the petitioner at Sl. No. 25, for grant of new licences clarifies, that the petitioner was not in possession of any licence at that point of time and was not in possession and enjoyment of plot No. B3/276. The petitioner could not submit either licence or account books to the A.M.C. or to the Court to prove the bona fides. f. The respondent No.7 / Sub-Registrar, Guntur filed a separate counter in W.P.No.20324 of 2019 on 28.02.2023 stating that there is no specific relief sought against this respondent. 5a. On 09.02.2021, Pruthvi Raj Sand filed another W.P. No. 3673 of 2021 to declare inaction of the respondents to consider the representation, dt. 09.01.2021, for conducting survey and fixing the boundaries of the plot No. 121 purchased under a sale deed, dt. 16.11.1979 as illegal; and further to direct to conduct discreet enquiry in relation to change of plot numbers, with the averments, stated briefly, as follows: The father of the petitioner has been in possession of the subject plot since the beginning without any violation of the conditions in the sale deed. The A.M.C. issued a notice informing that godowns shall be constructed according to the plan made by the Assistant Engineer, A.M.C. Accordingly, the father of the petitioner constructed a godown in the plot. After the death of his father, the petitioner continued to be in possession of it. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dt. 22 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch 09.01.2021, to the respondents to conduct survey and fix boundaries of the plot No. 121 and to further conduct discreet enquiry regarding the change of plot numbers. b. The respondent No.6 filed a counter in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 stating that the plot No. 121 was re-numbered as B3/276. The son of the petitioner submitted an application, dt. 18.12.2019, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, the “R.T.I. Act”) seeking proceedings regarding change of plot numbers. The A.M.C. never issued any proceedings for changing the plot numbers, but wrote the changed number on the front pole of the godown of the petitioner giving an impression that the numbers were changed. In reply to the application, dt. 18.12.2019, the A.M.C., replied that plot No. B3/276 is a registered plot, but it had not been certified by the authorities and that there is no material available regarding the proceedings for change of plot numbers or plot No. 121 to B3/276. Again one more application, dt. 10.12.2020, under the R.T.I. Act was made by the son of the petitioner seeking the same information. The A.M.C. replied about open auction conducted from 27.10.1975 to 31.10.1975 for allotment of plots and allotment of the plot No. 121 at Sl. No. 82 in the name of Lal Chand Salesha. Therefore, it is required to conduct survey and fix the boundaries to avoid discrepancies created by the A.M.C. in relation to the plot No. B3/276 and the plot No. 121. This Court, in W.A. No. 110 of 2013, held that the officials of the survey department are bound to conduct survey of private land, if anyone makes such a request by paying required charges. On 22.02.2021, vide I.A. No.1 of 2021, this Court directed the respondents Nos. 8 to 10 / Assistant Director of Survey & Land Records, Mandal Tahsildar (Urban), Guntur and Town Surveyor, Guntur 23 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch Municipal Corporation, to conduct survey in respect of the subject matter, after giving due notice to the petitioner and also the A.M.C., within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On 09.06.2022, the City Planner, Guntur Municipal Corporation issued an endorsement vide Roc.No. 6171317/2022/G4 stating that there was neither an approved nor an unapproved layout and that subdivision survey was not feasible, thus, making lawful demarcation impossible. c. The respondent No.4 / Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Guntur, filed a counter in W.P. No. 3673 of 2021 on 25.09.2023 with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The respondents Nos. 4 & 10, i.e., the Commissioner and the Town Surveyor, Guntur Urban, cannot interfere in the question of title. The petitioner did not apply for approval of a plan for construction of any building in the subject land nor did he approach these respondents at the time of purchase of the plot from the A.M.C. These respondents have no record of the subject matter and are not necessary parties to the writ petition. When the respondent No.10 surveyed the plot on the application of the petitioner, it was found that the land in Sy. Nos. 143, 144, 145, 147, 148 is not in the approved layout, and therefore, the same was informed to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition may be disposed of, taking into consideration the above facts. d. The respondent No.11 / Joint Sub-Registrar-I, Guntur, filed a counter affidavit in W.P. No. 3673 of 2021 on 25.03.2023 stating that the grievance of the petitioner is against the officials of the A.M.C. and there is no allegation against this respondent nor is there any relief sought against this respondent. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as against this respondent. 24 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch 6a. On 28.01.2021, Mangilal filed W.P. No. 2171 of 2021 to declare the resolution No.156, dt. 06.02.2019, passed to allot the plot No. B3/277 to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders / respondent No.12 and consequential order passed in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. Nil.02.2019 as illegal and to set aside them. He further sought direction on his representation dt. 11.01.2021 for conducting survey and fixing the boundaries of plot No. 122 as per the sale deed dt. 01.03.1980 and for conducting discreet inquiry in relation to change of plot numbers. The writ petition was filed with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The petitioner has been in continuous and peaceful possession of and carrying on business in the allotted plot for more than four decades, without violating conditions in the sale deed. The A.M.C. issued a notice informing that a godown shall be constructed according to the plan made by the Assistant Engineer, A.M.C. vide Rc. No. 3381/80-M10, dt. 01.12.1980, and accordingly, he constructed a godown in the plot No. 122 which was later changed as B3/277 by the A.M.C. due to the sudden fire accident occurred in the year 2008 in the market yard. The petitioner tried to secure proceedings relating to change of plot numbers, but it was not issued by the A.M.C. The changed number was written on the front pole of the godown of the petitioner giving an impression that the plot number was changed. On 09.11.2020, the A.M.C. with its staff, came to the godown of the petitioner and tried to destroy the material kept in the plot which was informed by the workers to the petitioner. Immediately, the son of the petitioner explained about the purchase of the plot, but the Secretary, A.M.C. and the staff destroyed the material and tried to dispossess the petitioner from the plot. The son of the petitioner resisted the highhanded action. The petitioner went to the office of the A.M.C. and furnished all the details, 25 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch including payment of charges levied by the A.M.C. When the petitioner tried to submit a representation to the respondents Nos.1 and 2, none received it. So, the petitioner sent a representation, dt. 20.11.2020, to the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 through registered post. Aggrieved by the action of the A.M.C., the petitioner filed W.P. No. 22264 of 2020 alleging that the Secretary, A.M.C. tried to dispossess the petitioner without issuing any prior notice. W.P. No. 18568 of 2019 filed by M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders was disposed of, on 04.12.2019, as the standing counsel for the A.M.C. represented that plot No. B3/277 had been allotted to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders. In this scenario, on 07.01.2021, W.P. No. 22264 of 2020 was dismissed as withdrawn giving liberty to the petitioner to file a comprehensive writ petition questioning the allotment of the subject plot. Then, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation, dt. 11.01.2021, to the respondents to conduct survey and fix boundaries of plot No. 122 and also to conduct a discreet enquiry relating to change of plot numbers. The right is transferred under a registered sale deed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Under the similar circumstances, owner of the plot No. 121 filed W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 questioning the allotment of his plot in favour of other person and obtained an order of status quo. The A.M.C. filed a counter affidavit in that writ petition stating re-numbering of plots due to the fire accident. To secure the details, the neighbouring owners filed an application under the R.T.I. Act about change of plot numbers. A reply was given to him that the plot number was registered, but, it had not been certified by the authorities and that no material of change of plot number is available. In that reply, the plot number of the petitioner herein was also mentioned. The petitioner applied, on 04.12.2020, under the R.T.I. Act to furnish the details, but, in vain. Unless the sale deed is cancelled by a competent civil Court, valid right 26 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch cannot be abridged by the A.M.C. by the impugned resolution and consequential allotment, without violation of a condition in the sale deed. But, the A.M.C., without notice to the petitioner, purportedly cancelled the registered allotment and illegally re-allotted the plot to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders. The A.M.C. has no authority to annul the registered allotment of a plot and re-allot it by administrative means, as a vested right was created through the registered sale deed. Vide order, dt. 01.10.2021, in I.A. No. 2 of 2021, this Court allowed the petition filed to conduct survey and fix the boundaries of the plot No. B3/277. b. The respondent No.9 / Tahsildar, Guntur West Mandal, filed a counter affidavit in W.P. No. 2171 of 2021, on 20.03.2025, with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The subject land is within the jurisdiction of Guntur Municipal Corporation (G.M.C.) and not within the purview of the Tahsildar, Guntur West Mandal and all the records are under the control of the G.M.C. It was informed, through an endorsement vide Rc. No. 131/2025-B, dt. 27.02.2025, for implementation of the order of the High Court of A.P., dt. 01.10.2021 in W.P. No. 2171 of 2021. The survey shall be conducted by Town Surveyor of the G.M.C. It came to be known that the subject plot lay out was made by the A.M.C. Hence, boundaries of the plots have to be shown by the A.M.C. c. The respondent No.11 / Joint Sub Registrar, Guntur, filed a counter affidavit in W.P. No. 2171 of 2021, on 20.03.2025, stating that no relief was actually sought nor was any allegation made against this respondent and prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 27 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch d. The respondent No.12 / Sri Surya Chillies Traders filed a counter affidavit in W.P. No. 2171 of 2021, on 17.02.2025, with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The petition is liable to be dismissed for seeking multiple reliefs. There is no allegation attributing mala fides in passing the resolution No.156, dt. 06.02.2018, allotting the plot No. B3/277 in favour of this respondent and the consequential order, in the absence of which the relief prayed in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition was filed three years after passing the resolution. This respondent has acquired indefeasible right. The petition is liable to be dismissed for delay and laches. The petition is not bona fide as is filed at the behest of rival trader who is prosecuting the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 22264 of 2020 stating that his son was a partner in Lavanya Trading Company and the said company is utilizing the plot for its operations as a commission agent. Therefore, it shows that the petitioner is not doing business for the purpose for which it was allotted. Though the petitioner was allotted plot No. 122, business was not conducted as per the terms and conditions. This respondent learnt that the petitioner had not filed any monthly returns as per Section 12A of the Act, 1966. The petitioner has not filed material to show that he conducted any business after the allotment of the plot. The son of the petitioner is not a partner in Lavanya Trading Company as he stated in W.P. No. 22264 of 2020 filed by him. Only two persons, by names, Ravula Srinivasa Rao S/o. Ranga Rao and Ravula Shankar Rao are the partners of it as per the licence No. C12106/2018-2023 issued by the A.M.C. After coming to know the above fact, the petitioner omitted the said plea in the present writ petition, W.P. No. 2171 of 2021. It gives presumption that he is not conducting business and violated the 28 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch terms and conditions, but filed the writ petition at the behest of Lavanya Trading Company. The petitioner forfeited his right over the plot in view of the violation of the terms and conditions of allotment of plot. His licence is deemed to be cancelled for not conducting business for continuous period of two years. The plot allotted to him is vested with the A.M.C. Therefore, the A.M.C. is entitled to resume the plot. This respondent is trading in chillies. On application, dt. 01.02.2019, for allotment of shop in the name of Sri Surya Chillies Traders, was granted to this respondent, after conducting enquiry by the respondent No.6 and passing resolution No.156, dt. 06.02.2019, to allot plot No. B3/277 admeasuring 21” X 80” on permanent lease basis with conditions and issued proceedings vide Roc. No. 940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019. Since the possession of the plot was not delivered, W.P. No. 18568 of 2019 was filed by this respondent. It was disposed of on 04.12.2019 directing the concerned to handover possession to this respondent. Since the order was not implemented, this respondent filed a contempt case. Thereafter, possession of the plot was delivered by the A.M.C. The petitioner (Mangilal) filed W.A. No. 654 of 2021 against the order in W.P. No. 18568 of 2019. The appeal is pending. Perusal of document No. 1318/1980 and the proceedings allotting plot to this respondent shows that the boundaries and the extent of the plots are different. This respondent is conducting the business in the market yard without any hindrance in pursuance of the order in W.P. No. 18568 of 2019. Meanwhile, this writ petition in W.P. No. 2171 of 2021 was filed. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. It was represented by learned standing counsel on behalf of the A.M.C. that in the meanwhile, on 01.04.2023, a fresh commission agent licence was issued to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders upto 31.03.2028 29 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch permitted regulated trade without conferring any right over plot No.B3/276. 8a. On 20.12.2023, Pruthvi Raj Sand and his son filed W.P. No. 32979 of 2023 to declare the action of the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 in allowing M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders / respondent No. 7 into the petitioner’s plot No. B3/276 in the Market Yard, Guntur, without following the procedure established under law and contrary to the order passed in W.A. No. 5 of 2020 and W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 and further action of the C.I. of Police, Nallapadu P.S., / respondent No. 9 in threatening the petitioners to settle the issue as illegal. The petitioner alleged that while the writ petitions, W.P. No. 18553 of 2019 and W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 were being listed for hearing, the learned standing counsel and the government pleader had taken adjournments. While so, M/s. Venkateswara Traders / respondent No.7 was making efforts to enter into the plot and trying to install a sign board at the disputed plot and therefore, the petitioner No.2 / son of Pruthvi Raj Sand (petitioner No.1 herein) lodged a criminal complaint before the S.H.O., Nallapadu P.S. and F.I.R. No. 943 of 2023 was registered on 17.09.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506, 509 r/w 34 I.P.C. On 18.12.2023, M/s. Venkateswara Traders installed a sign board in the plot with the support of the other respondents / the A.M.C. and petitioner No.2 was scolded. In turn, M/s. Venkateswara Traders lodged a complaint against the petitioner No.2. Therefore, the Circle Inspector of Police, Nallapadu P.S. / respondent No. 9 directed the petitioner No.2 to appear before the S.H.O., Nallapadu P.S. / respondent No.8 and threatened with dire consequences if the issue is not settled. 30 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch b. The respondents Nos. 4 to 6 / the A.M.C. filed a counter, on 05.01.2024, in W.P. No. 32979 of 2023 with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: (The facts about original allotment of the plot to Lal Chand Salesha, subsequent order / interim order passed in the W.P. No. 18553 of 2019, W.P. No. 20324 of 2019, judgment in appeal in W.A. No. 5 of 2020, fire accident and re-allotment of the subject plot are mentioned.) The registered document does not convey a right in property to private persons to be succeeded by the descendants and the right in property remains with the government only for the purpose of business. These respondents are not violating the Act, 1966 and the Rules, 1969. The allegations levelled against these respondents are incorrect. c. The respondent No.7 / M/s. Venkateswara Traders, filed a counter, on 22.10.2024, in W.P. No. 32979 of 2023 with the averments, briefly stated, as follows: The writ petition is not maintainable as there is no violation of statutory revision or fundamental right of the petitioner and moreover, the issue is with regard to dispute of ownership over the subject plot on the strength of registered document and for recovery of possession of the plot. This respondent was granted licence as a commission agent under the A.M.C. and has been doing business for long time and getting the licence renewed. The vacant plot No. B3/276 was allotted to this respondent in exchange of plot No. D4/533 after following due procedure and the possession of the plot was delivered in pursuance of the order in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 and as on the date of passing the interim order, dt. 20.12.2019, in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 to maintain status quo, this respondent is in possession of the subject shop and the 31 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch interim order has been extended from time to time. The allegations that this respondent was making efforts to enter into the plot and trying to install a sign board to the subject plot and thereby, the petitioner No. 2 lodged a criminal complaint before the police are false. The complaint was lodged with false allegations to create evidence to circumvent the order of status quo, dt. 20.12.2019. The writ petition was filed at the behest of the neighbouring trader, though the petitioner is not in possession of the property. There is no merit in the writ petition. 9a. Then, M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders filed W.P. No. 20525 of 2024 to declare the action of the respondents in seizing the plot No. B3/276 and not allowing the petitioner to conduct its business operations as illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to conduct its business in plot bearing No. B3/276. The petitioner alleged that pursuant to the directions, dt. 04.12.2019, of this Court in W.P. No. 18553 of 2019, the A.M.C. handed over plot bearing No. B3/276 to the petitioner. The petitioner has been trading in chillies in the said plot and paid the rent for the years 2018 - 2019 to 2022 - 2023. As per the orders, dt. 18.02.2021, in W.A. No. 5 of 2020 filed by Pruthvi Raj Sand, the order in W.P. No. 18553 of 2019 was set aside and the matter was remanded. Pruthvi Raj Sand filed W.P. No. 20324 of 2019 questioning the proceedings in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019. An order, dt. 20.12.2019, was passed directing both the parties to maintain status quo. Since the petitioner herein is in possession of plot No. B3/276, he is continuing with the business. While so, on 18.08.2024, Sunday, a holiday to the A.M.C., while the petitioner was attending jathara in his village, he received a phone call that Mr. Uma Shankar, along with 30 other persons, had come to the plot No. B3/276 and destroyed the name board of the petitioner, C.C. camera, mirchi bags 32 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch and almyrah. The petitioner called the C.I. of Police, Nallapadu P.S., at 09.19 p.m., 09.20 p.m and 10.05 p.m. The C.I. directed the petitioner to report the matter to the A.M.C. Accordingly, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the A.M.C. but no action was taken. The petitioner made a complaint to the higher officials on 28.08.2024, but, no action has been taken. The petitioner was not allowed to continue to do business. b. No counter has been filed. 10. Admittedly, father of Pruthvi Raj Sand was allotted the plot No. 121 and Mangilal was allotted the plot No. 122 in the initial allotment of plots to different agents. The allotments made under the registered deeds contained conditions and also the consequential remedies in case of their violation. The question whether there was any violation of these conditions had not come to the fore till a request was made by M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders and M/s. Surya Chillies Traders for allotment of vacant plots to them. After the fire accident, there was restructure of the market yard and numbers were altered. Though it was admitted in the earlier counters filed by the A.M.C. also that plot No. 121 was assigned the plot No. B3/276 and plot No. 122 was assigned plot No. B3/277, subsequently it was pleaded denying any correlation. That apart, even when there was re-allotment of the plots Nos. B3/276 and B3/277 under the impugned resolution and proceedings, there is no dispute of identity of these plots with reference to the previous plots allotted to the original allottees. Therefore, it is only a subsequently developed thought just to overcome the dispute over the impugned proceedings. 11a. According to the contentions of the A.M.C. and the subsequent allottees of the plots, B3/276 and B3/277, the authority given to the 33 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch A.M.C. to revoke the allotment in the event of violation of the conditions in the registered deeds was duly exercised by the A.M.C. since the allottees failed to conduct business and got the licences renewed periodically as per the rules and regulations. b. On the other hand, Pruthvi Raj Sand and Mangilal contended that there was no such alleged violation as they have been continuing to do business and that the A.M.C. has no authority to pass such resolution or issue the consequential proceedings without even hearing the affected parties by issuing prior notice. It is also contended that sale of the plots once made, cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the A.M.C., particularly without complying the conditions in their totality as they contemplated payment of money to the allottee in the case of resuming possession of the plot even when there is violation of the terms of the allotment and it is a mutual obligation. In this regard, it is also contended that since it is a sale of plot by the A.M.C., it cannot be cancelled at all. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Thota Ganga Laxmi Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1 and Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh2. It is also submitted that there is no need to obtain a decree from a civil Court since the proceedings are nullity and relied on Prem Singh Vs. Birbal3. c. Further, the A.M.C. and the subsequent allottees contended that the allotment of plots are not “sales” but mere “allotments”, notwithstanding that the registered instruments are styled as “sale deed”, as (i) the Government has not transferred ownership to the allottees, as is essential for “sale”, and continues as owner through the 1 (2010) 15 SCC 207 2 (2016) 10 SCC 767 3 (2006) 5 SCC 353 34 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch A.M.C., and (ii) the allotment is subject to conditions, breach of which entitles the A.M.C. to resume and re-allot the plot. A reference was made to the decisions of the Supreme Court at paragraph No. 19 in Indu Kakkar Vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and another 4 and State of Telangana and others Vs. Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala Hanumantha Rao Charitable Trust5. It is also contended that the authority of the A.M.C. is only to regulate the business in the notified agricultural produce, but it has no authority to sell any property and therefore, the allotment made under the registered deeds cannot be treated as absolute sales. In response to unilateral cancellation, reliance was made on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society Vs. Registrar of Societies and others6 in support of the proposition that a notice is not necessary when the consequences have already been stated for violation of the terms and conditions of the transactions. 12. The question is whether the action of the A.M.C. in the impugned proceedings is legal. The stated violation of the terms due to which the A.M.C. took the decision under challenge in these writ petitions is that the allottees kept the plots vacant for a long period without doing business. So, there must be, first of all, the alleged violation, secondly authority to do and thirdly, the procedure must be legal. 13. Regarding the disputed fact of possession, this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not generally decide the factual controversy, but can examine the same for the purpose of deciding the incidental questions. The pleadings were taken by Pruthvi Raj Sand that 4 (1999) 2 SCC 37 5 2025 INSC 679 6 (2000) 1 SCC 566 35 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch his father constructed a godown after the fire accident in the year 2008 in proof of which he submitted a copy of tax invoice of purchase of steel material from Futnani Steels Private Limited, dt. 19.01.2009, for Rs. 34,644/-, and that after his father, he has been continuing to do business through the other trader’s name and has been paying electricity charges to the A.M.C. even during October, 2023 and November, 2023, in respect of the plot No. B3/276, in proof of which copies of undisputed documents were filed with written arguments, dt. 06.01.2026, and also got renewed the licence and also paid rent. In support of similar argument by Mangilal, copies of undisputed documents were filed along with written arguments, dt. 06.01.2026, relating to Mangilal for purchase of steel material worth Rs. 46,982/- vide tax invoice, dt. 19.01.2009, from Futnani Steels Private Limited and a bunch of electricity bills issued by the A.M.C., in respect of the plot No. B3/277 in the name of Lavanya Chillies for different years ranging from 2014 to 2019. 14. On the other hand, the contention of the A.M.C. is that there is no record of evidence filed to establish continuation of renewal of licences without which business cannot be done and that they have been actually doing business by either of them. 15. In the light of these rival contentions of both the parties noted above, a thorough enquiry is required to conclude whether there was any alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the original allotment. The further discussion shows that proper enquiry was not done by the A.M.C. in this regard. 16. Since it was contended that the allotment under the registered deeds dt. 16.11.1979 in favour of Lal Chand Salesha and dt. 07.03.1980 36 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch in favour of Mangilal are sale deeds and cannot be cancelled, it is necessary to examine them. Insofar as the nature of the transaction is concerned, whether a transaction is an absolute sale or a conditional allotment and consequently whether such transaction can be cancelled or not, each case is to be decided basing on the facts in that case. In the case on hand, only in condition No. 4, there is a reference of resumption or re-transfer of the vacant plot by the A.M.C. and the other conditions don’t provide such right to the A.M.C. It states - “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. If shop or godown is not constructed in such plot as per the approved type design within the time stipulated by the A.M.C., the A.M.C. has right to get such vacant plot re-transferred to it at the price fixed by it and take its possession.” Thus, it cannot be said that there is no authority retained by the A.M.C to re-transfer the plot to it in case of violation of the conditions stipulated in the documents. 17. In Dr. Pasupuleti Nirmala (supra), among the others, the question relevant to the present case is whether the alienation of the land by the District Collector, Medak, vide order, dt. 08.02.2001, was a sale or alienation / allotment. A charitable trust applied for allotment of land for charitable purposes and the land in question was allotted by the District Collector, in exercise of power conferred under the Telangana Alienation of State Lands and Revenue Rules, 1975, subject to payment of market value and three other conditions and also that in case of any deviation of these conditions, the land shall be resumed by the revenue authorities. The allotment of land in that case is by way of grant of state land. Under these circumstances, it was held that the alienation of the 37 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch land by the District Collector was not a sale, but an allotment under statutory scheme. 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. 19. The documents filed are to be examined to delve on the further disputed aspects. On calling for the record relating to passing the impugned resolution and the proceedings, the original record was brought before this Court on 24.09.2025 by the Secretary Grade - I, A.M.C., Guntur, and later, their copies were filed vide memo, dt. 08.10.2025. Separate memos were filed in W.P. Nos. 18568 of 2019 and 2171 of 2021 and W.P. Nos. 18553 of 2019, 20324 of 2019, 3673 of 2021 and 32979 of 2023. 20. This record consists of copies of (i) Report, dt. 04.02.2019, of Ch.Venkata Ratnam, Supervisor, A.M.C., Guntur, addressed to the Person-in-charge, A.M.C., Guntur, to recover possession of and allot to the other commission agents the vacant plot No. B3/276 earlier alloted to Lal Chand Salesha S/o. Bastiramji and the plot No. B3/277 earlier allotted to Mangilal S/o. Perajwalji, as they do not have any commission agent licence and have not been doing any business transactions and they have not been residing at the addresses given in the market yard 38 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch nor within the limits of A.M.C., Guntur, as per the enquiry held and that the related documents of enquiry were enclosed to the application (no enclosures are filed); (ii) Office note, Rc. No. 661/2018, dt. 05.02.2019, of A.M.C., Guntur, placed by the office submitting that the file was placed before the Person-in-charge through Secretary Grade - I, A.M.C., to take possession of the plot No. B3/277 by the A.M.C. and allot the same to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders, commission agent, on permanent lease basis, with reference to the letter, dt. 01.02.2019, of M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders, requesting to allot the plot No. B3/277 on permanent lease basis as they have commission agent licence but no plot was allotted and the office note was signed by the Person-in- charge on 06.02.2019 as “approved”; (iii) The minutes of the general body meeting No. 7/2018-19 of A.M.C., Guntur, originally dated: Nil .11.2018, rounded off and dt. 06.02.2019 by correcting ‘2018’ as ‘2019’, (a) approved vide resolution No.155 regarding allotment of taken over the plot No. B3/276 to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders on ‘permanent’ (inserted) lease basis by the A.M.C., Guntur, (b) approved vide resolution No.156 regarding allotment of the recovered plot No. B3/277 to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders on ‘permanent’ lease basis by the A.M.C., Guntur; (iv) order in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. Nil.02.2019, of A.M.C., Guntur, signed with dt. 06.02.2019 allotting the plot No. B3/277, 21” X 18” size within the boundaries: east and west: road, north: Thota Narasimha Rao and company, and south: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders; (v) letter, dt. Nil of M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders, to the Secretary, A.M.C. informing that business is being done in the plot No. B3/277 which was delivered on 16.11.2020 pursuant to filing of C.C. No. 459 of 2020 for not implementing the order in W.P. No. 18568 of 2019; (vi) Form-8C original licence of M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders, dt. 24.09.2019, valid upto 31.03.2023, 39 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch (vii) Form-8C renewal licence of M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders, dt. 31.03.2023 for the period 2023 - 2028, with address of the trader referring to the plot No. B3/277, Market yard, Guntur; (viii) Notice in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. 17.03.2025, issued as per the oral direction of the High Court, dt. 10.02.2025, by A.M.C., Guntur, to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders with a copy marked to Mangilal, stating that on perusal of the record, it was felt that the legal issues developed for not following legal procedures in passing the resolution for allotment of the plot No. B3/277 and to amicably resolve the legal issues, directing M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders to give written explanation as to why another vacant plot shall not be allotted to this trader and further directing to attend before the Secretary Grade-I A.M.C., Guntur, at 11 a.m. on 21.03.2025, indicating that the resolution would be subject to the order of the High Court; (ix) representation of M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders received by the Secretary Grade-I, Guntur, on 22.03.2025, mainly opposing the proposal and stating that the plot No. B3/277 was allotted to it after conducting thorough enquiry since the plot was vacant and that the High Court advised to look into the matter of allotment of the vacant plot and not for cancellation of the plot allotted to this trader. 21. The memo relating to writ petitions filed by M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders consists of some of the common documents at serial Nos.(i), (ii), and (iii) noted above and documents similar to those noted above, such as, (iv) application, dt. 28.01.2019, submitted by M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders to Person-in-charge, A.M.C., Guntur, to allot the vacant plot No. B3/276 in the place of already allotted the plot No. D4/533 in which this trader is facing certain problems in doing business; (v) order in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019, of A.M.C., Guntur, allotting the plot No. B3/276, 21” X 18” size within the boundaries: east 40 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch and west: road, north: M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders, and south: M/s. Neelima Chillies, to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders; (vi) Form-8C renewal licence of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, dt. 08.08.2017 for the period 2013 - 18, with address of the trader referring to the plot No. B3/276, Market yard, Guntur; (vii) Form-8C renewal licence of M/s. Venkateswara Traders, dt. 29.03.2023, for the period 2023 - 2028, with address of the trader referring to the plot No. B3/276, Market yard, Guntur; (viii) Notice in Rc. No. 940/2018, dt. 17.03.2025, issued as per the oral direction of the High Court, dt. 10.02.2025, by A.M.C., Guntur, to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, with a copy marked to Pruthvi Raj Sand, stating that on perusal of the record, it was felt that the legal issues developed for not following legal procedures in passing the resolution for allotment of the plot No. B3/276 and therefore, to amicably resolve the legal issues, directing M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders to give written explanation as to why the previously allotted plot No. D4/533 to this trader shall not be re-allotted to this trader by taking over the plot No. B3/276 and further directing to attend before the Secretary Grade - I A.M.C., Guntur, at 11 a.m. on 21.03.2025, indicating that the resolution would be subject to the order of the High Court; (ix) representation of M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders received by the Person-in-charge, A.M.C, Guntur, dt. 22.03.2025, opposing the proposal in the notice, dt. 17.03.2025. 22. The sequence of events shows that after the applications, dt. 28.01.2019 / 01.02.2019 were made by the traders for allotment of vacant plots to them, the Supervisor, A.M.C., Guntur submitted his report, dt. 04.02.2019, concluding that plots bearing Nos. B3/276 and B3/277 can be taken over and allotted to other commission agents and thereafter, on the office note placed by the Supervisor, A.M.C., Guntur, 41 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch the Person-in-charge. A.M.C., Guntur, on 06.02.2019, approved allotment of these plots to the commission agents through resolution of the A.M.C. On the same day, as per the minutes of the general body meeting No. 7/2018 - 19 of A.M.C., Guntur, originally dt.: Nil.11.2018, rounded off and dt. 06.02.2019 by correcting ‘2018’ as ‘2019’, the A.M.C. (a) vide resolution No. 155, approved allotment of resumed plot No. B3/276 to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders on ‘permanent’ (inserted) lease basis by the A.M.C., Guntur, (b) vide resolution No. 156, approved allotment of taken over plot No. B3/277 to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders on ‘permanent’ lease basis. Consequently, separate proceedings were issued allotting these plots as noted above. 23. Now, coming to the process of re-allotment, the documents produced by the A.M.C. throw light on the issue. A perusal of the record shows that, except a direction to the Supervisor to submit a report, there was no record of the actual enquiry made. It was stated that on enquiry, it revealed that the original allottees were not in possession of the disputed plots. No names of the persons whom the enquiry officer examined nor were their statements placed on record. That apart, when and how the enquiry was held also was not indicated. The duration of the time taken to hold the enquiry and submit report is also short. In the light of these conditions and the documents, since it is a question of fact whether there has been any violation of the terms and conditions of the registered allotment, without providing an opportunity to the persons likely to be affected, even for an administrative authority which is expected to follow principles of natural justice, it is violation of law to take a decision adversely affecting. Therefore, when a question of fact is involved for exercising consequential authority agreed between the 42 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch parties, it is required to give a notice and hear the party before taking a decision. 24. The decision in the case of Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society (supra) has no application to the case on hand. The contention that prior notice is not required due to violation of terms of the sale deed cannot be accepted as the terms created mutual obligations. In that case, it was held that the society was not expected to give the member a show-cause notice why he should not be treated as member for that year because he was aware of the statutory rule which stipulated that on the expiry of three months without payment of Rs.25/- as membership fee would automatically cease to be a member and such a notice is implicit in the rule itself and it is the member’s own inaction which makes him to get out of the membership for that year. This decision cannot be made applicable to the present case, though the sale deed contained conditions incorporating the consequential action for violation of the conditions, because the consequential action does not automatically follow, but is subject to payment of the amount of price fixed by the A.M.C. to the allottee for resumption of the plot. Moreover, the alleged violation of several conditions in the present case are factual disputes and it is only on deciding them, the consequential entitlement of resumption of the plots would follow, that too, with further discharge of the corresponding obligation of making payment of price fixed by the A.M.C. 25. In Indu Kakkar (supra), it was held at paragraph No.19 as follows: “19. … As a rule a party to a contract cannot transfer his liabilities under the contract without consent of the other 43 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch party. This rule applies both at the Common Law and In Equity (vide para 337 of Halsburys Laws of England, fourth edition, part 9). Where a contract involves mutual rights and obligations, an assignee of a right cannot enforce that right without fulfilling the co-relative obligations." 26. In Thota Ganga Laxmi (supra), the father of the appellants purchased a plot from the respondent No.4 under a registered sale deed, but it was cancelled by the respondent No.4 unilaterally executing a cancellation deed and subsequently, the same was registered by the respondent No.3 without any notice to the appellants. A writ petition was filed seeking declaration that the cancellation deed is illegal. It was held that there is no need to approach civil Court as the cancellation as well as its registration were wholly void and non est and can be ignored altogether. It was illustrated that if ‘A’ transfers land to ‘B’ under a registered sale deed, ‘B’ becomes its owner and thereafter, if ‘A’ wants to get the sale deed cancelled, he has to file a civil suit for cancellation or can request ‘B’ to sell the land back, but ‘A’ cannot cancel the sale by execution of cancellation deed and getting it registered. It is a case dealing with absolute sale and not facts similar to the case on hand wherein the allotment, though on payment of price, is not absolute and the A.M.C. retained right to resume possession, however, subject to payment of amount to the allottee, that too, only in case of violation of the terms of allotment mentioned in the deed itself. In Satyapal Anand (supra), referring to the decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi (supra), the same proposition was followed. 27. There is also serious dispute as to whether the re-allotted plots were actually delivered to the re-allottees. It is pertinent to mention that nowhere, in the report, dt. 04.02.2019, or the office note, dt. 06.02.2019, 44 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch of the Supervisor, it was stated that the plots Nos. B3/276 or B3/277 had been taken over. It is just stated that these plots may be taken over and allotted. But, in the proposal before the general body meeting of the A.M.C., dt. 06.02.2019, it was mentioned as though these plots had been taken over and approval was sought for allotment. There is no separate proceeding in any form, either approving resumption of or resuming possession of these plots. 28. If the plots are vacant and left unused without any person relating to the original allottees holding control over them, it is not known why the plots were not immediately handed over to the re-allottees. There is silence about the inability to deliver the plots which were said to be vacant and not used by the allottees. The re-allottees filed separate writ petitions W.P. Nos. 18553 and 18568 of 2019 seeking direction to the A.M.C. to handover physical possession of these plots to them. Moreover, in spite of an order passed for delivery of possession of the plots in these writ petitions, on the representation by the A.M.C. to deliver physical possession, within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, until contempt cases were filed, the physical possession of the plots was allegedly not delivered. There was no proceeding of delivery of physical possession said to be affected after filing of the contempt cases. It shows that it is required to enquire into the contention of the allottees that they have not lost physical possession of these plots and the dispute over these plots was there at the time and subsequent to passing the resolution and even till the proceedings passed a year later and thereafter also. It is pertinent to mention that during the hearing before another Bench of this Court, a direction was given to the Secretary incharge of the A.M.C. pursuant to 45 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch which the notices, dt. 17.03.2025, were issued, but the negotiations failed. 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 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 46 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch 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. 32. The learned Standing Counsel for the A.M.C. contended that internal correspondence and note proceedings which are not final and have no statutory force cannot be challenged in writ proceedings. This argument cannot be accepted as the resolution is the basis for passing the proceedings re-allotting the same plots of the allottees in favour of re-allottees and such action has directly affected the rights of the allottees. However, he further submitted that if there is any bona fide mistake by the authority in not issuing prior notice or re-allotment on erroneous factual assumption or incomplete verification, the same can be rectified and is permissible in law and that no individual can claim an enforceable right to perpetuate an illegality or administrative error. With regard to the notice, dt. 17.03.2025, pursuant to the direction of this Court, it was submitted that the steps demonstrate adherence to the 47 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch statutory procedure, but no final decision was taken. The notice pasted on 18.08.2024 at the disputed place is explained to be indicating regulation of possession in view of pending litigation and a preventive action to safeguard the market property and maintain order in view of the disputes, but it does not amount to illegal dispossession as there was no crystallized or indefeasible right in favour of the writ petitioner / M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders. It is also submitted that acceptance of rent, issuance of provisional communication etc., cannot elevate a tentative administrative proposal into final statutory act. Referring to the role of the A.M.C., it was submitted that the A.M.C. is willing to permit M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders to continue business operations in the originally allotted the plot No. D4/533. Regarding the sale deeds, it was submitted that allotments evidenced through registered document is not an absolute conveyance of title and resumption of possession or cancellation of allotment is permissible for prolonged non-use or deemed cancellation of licence as per G.O. Ms. No. 260, dt. 28.09.2010, subject to following due process of law for such cancellation or resumption. 33. A statutory authority, while discharging its duties, shall act as per law and the settled practices in accordance with law and cannot act deviating from the same even for a laudable object or discharge of duties. Without issuing any notice to the parties likely to be affected by the order of re-allotment of the plots and effectively hearing them before passing the impugned proceedings, being illegal, are liable to be set aside and no need to obtain any decree from a civil Court in this matter. In Prem Singh and others (supra), it was held that when a document is valid, no question arises for its cancellation and when a document is void ab initio, a decree for setting aside the same would not be 48 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch necessary as the same is non est in the eye of law, as it would be a nullity. There is no dispute about the legal proposition. Similar view is observed from the decision in Thota Ganga Laxmi (supra). The re- allotment was made under the guise of the right of the A.M.C. for resumption of the plots for violation of the conditions, without complying the corresponding obligation to pay the allottees the amount of the price to be fixed by the A.M.C. itself. Therefore, the colourable exercise of the authority by the A.M.C. in the re-allotment is ex facie illegal. 34. It was also argued by the allottees that to evict a person from possession of public property, the procedure under the A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 shall be followed. This Act has no application. It is not a case of illegal or unauthorized occupation of the allottees. The A.M.C. and the re- allottees merely contend that the allottees were not in occupation and possession and therefore, they state that the plots were taken over. 35. The reliefs claimed in W.P. Nos. 3673 of 2021 and 32979 of 2023 for conducting survey and fixing the boundaries and to conduct enquiry regarding change of plot numbers have become infructuous by now as the purpose of survey was already served by the interim directions and submission of the report thereon. With regard to change in the plot numbers, no record was placed nor was any separate enquiry held. It is a factual dispute. It is open for the parties to seek such reliefs, both regarding the survey and the change of numbers of the plots afresh, if so required, in future. 49 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch 36. In the result, W.P. Nos. 18553 of 2019, 18568 of 2019 and 20525 of 2024 are dismissed. In the result, W.P. Nos. 20324 of 2019 and 2171 of 2021 are allowed and the resolutions Nos.155 and 156, dt. 06.02.2019, passed to allot the plot No. B3/276 to M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders and allot the plot No. B3/277 to M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders and the consequential order in Rc.No. 940/2018, dt. 06.02.2019 passed by the Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur are set aside, giving it liberty to conduct enquiry afresh by following due process of law, 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 the sides. In the result, W.P. No. 3673 of 2021 is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to seek the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, both regarding the survey and the change of number of the plot. Similar liberty is given to the petitioner in W.P. No. 2171 of 2021 as well. In the result, W.P. No. 32979 of 2023 is disposed of in the light of the order in W.P. No. 20324 of 2019. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.02.2026 RAR