Disposed

M/s Padmavathi Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Mar 2021WP/6287/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of an industrial plot allotment under Article 226. The High Court, deeming the issue not ripe for trial, stayed proceedings and directed authorities to issue notice and provide an opportunity of personal hearing before deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; liberty granted to respondents to issue notice; petitioner directed to submit explanation and grant personal hearing before final orders.

M/s Padmavathi Constructions Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6287 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of

¶5

India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“….to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings Lr.No. 7407/ZOTPT/86/IP-GMD/2007, dated 22.02.2021 issued by 3^rd respondent canceling the Allotment of Plot No. 74, Industrial Park, Gajulamandyam, Renigunta Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District in favour of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)g and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same”.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Industries for Respondent No.1 and learned standing counsel for Respondents 2 and 3. With their consent, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶8

As per the averments of the Writ Petition, the 3^rd respondent was provisionally allotted Plot No. 74 to the petitioner at Industrial Park, Gajulamandyam in Renigunta Revenue Mandal, Chittoor District for setting up a unit for the manufacture of “Ready Mix Concrete, Cement Blocks & Hollow Bricks” as per proceedings dated 30.11.2007. The total cost of land works out to Rs. 17,60,445/-. A letter dated 18.08.2008 was issued and informed the petitioner that the area in Plot No. 74 is 10849.00 Sq.mtrs instead of 11736.30 and cost of the land works out to Rs. 16,27,350/-. The provisional allotment was finalized as per proceedings dated 22.09.2008. In fact, an amount of Rs. 17,63,782/- was paid even before the letter dated 18.08.2008. Despite, repeated requests, the respondent authorities issued letters dated 29.01.2009, 01.02.2010, 27.05.2010 and 26.06.2010

¶9

¶10

by blaming the petitioner has not executed the agreement of sale and levied penalty of Rs. 75,943/-. As per letter the petitioner has paid penalty and requested to execute the agreement of sale. Accordingly, agreement of sale was executed in favour of the petitioner on 03.08.2010 and the petitioner has submitted a building plan for approval and also construction of the plant. The petitioner has sent letter dated 27.09.2012 informing the respondents about the completion of the project and commencement of the commercial production. Basing on the same the local authorities have also levied property tax by way of demand notice dated 24.05.2013. Subsequently the petitioner has made several representations and finally made representation on 16.07.2019 for registration of sale deed. Surprisingly, the 3^rd respondent got issued notice dated 05.03.2020 seeking explanation, as to why the allotment should not be cancelled, on the ground that the petitioner violated allotment terms and conditions. Surprisingly, the 3^rd respondent has cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner as per proceedings Lr.No.7407/ZO-TPT/86/IP-GMD/2007, dated 22.02.2021 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 04.04.2020. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically stated that initially the respondent authorities have not co-operated and not executed the agreement of sale. Despite, repeated requests made by the petitioner and imposed penalty and after made payment of penalty an agreement was executed by the respondents, even though after completion of the project as per the milestone stipulated in the agreement, the same was brought to

¶12

¶13

the notice to the respondent authorities. Even after onwards, the petitioner requested the respondents for registration of the sale deed, but in vain. While things thus stood, the 3^rd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings for cancellation of the allotment of plot allotted to the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents on instructions categorically stated that even according to the averments made in the Writ Petition shows that the petitioner has not made any efforts to complete the project and lost made correspondence is in the year 2012 i.e a decade back, so the petitioner has not shown any interest to complete the project and further he stated that even according to the petitioner the primary activity of the petitioner is manufacturing the “Ready Mix Concrete, Cement Blocks & Hollow Bricks” and the activities is not being carried on for the time being. Therefore, it clearly establishes that the petitioner has not running any industry in the said allotted plot. Hence the cancellation is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

¶15

No doubt, as per the reference cited in the impugned proceedings clearly shows that basing on the report of the office, an inspection had been done by the authorities on 09.02.2021 and passed impugned orders. Hence there is no whisper about giving opportunity to the petitioner, when the authorities wants to take any action after ten long years, without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation to substantiate his grievance and passed the impugned order.

¶16

¶17

Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, without touching the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the respondents to issue notice along with other materials, which they are relying, to the petitioner, on receipt of such notice and material, the petitioner is directed to submit his explanation in detail along with supporting documents, if any, to the respondents; on receipt of such explanation, the respondents are directed to give opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid order, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶19

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶20

______________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH

Date: 19.03.2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.6287 OF 2021

¶26

Date: 19.03.2021

¶27

M/s Padmavathi Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Padmavathi Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Vennapusa Reddy Gari Cements Private Limited Vs Sri. Gopala Krishna Dwivedi

P. Naga Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chokka Babuji, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Perabattula Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kodi Mahesh Anil Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Jafar Basha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh