In a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a plot allotment, the High Court held that the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands and an undue delay. The petition was dismissed as an abuse of process of the court.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No.25784 of 2001
Between:
Arava Dass
……PETITIONER(S)
A N D
1. The General Manager, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corp. Limited, Regd. Office Parishrama Bhavan, 6th Floor, Fathe Maidan Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others
……RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
WRIT PETITION No.25784 of 2001
ORDER:
Petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, applied for allotment of a plot in Wood Complex on 07.05.1987 for establishing a Saw Mill under self-employment scheme quota, to the second respondent i.e. the Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC), and vide letter dated 11.01.1988 he was informed that the allotment would be released by the end of January, 1988 and vide letter dated 22.02.1988 plot No.80 of an extent of 880.14 sq mtrs was allotted in his favour at Rs.62/- per square metre apart from the frontage charges, less 10% as he belongs to Scheduled Caste category. After he paid the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.2,510/- petitioner was permitted to occupy plot No.80. The case of the petitioner is that after he occupied the said plot No.80 and reclaimed it by spending a huge amount, second respondent vide letter dated 27.07.1988 asked him to deposit 50% of the cost of the plot within a period of one month from the date of that letter and though he approached the authorities concerned for payment of that amount and for obtaining an agreement, for the reasons best known only to them, the APIIC authorities were postponing receipt of the amount due from him and execution of the sale deed obviously at the instance of the fourth respondent. Subsequently vide letter dated 08.09.1988 he was asked to pay Rs.27,284.65ps and obtain an
agreement within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice and that the allotment in his favour would stand cancelled in case of his failure to comply with the above condition of payment within 15 days. He purchased machinery and tools worth Rs.41,884/and sought for and was sanctioned loan of Rs.1,13,000/- from Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Nellore (APSFC), for running his unit in plot No.80. After the second respondent, vide letter dated 09.08.1990, cancelled the allotment of plot No.80 made in his favour and allotted the same to fourth respondent, who is a non-local candidate belonging to Forward Caste community, he filed O.S.No.708 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Munsiff, Nellore, for injunction restraining the defendants therein i.e. 4th respondent and others and their men from interfering with his possession over plot No.80 and filed I.A.No.437 of 1987 therein seeking an injunction during the pendency of the suit wherein an order of status quo was granted. Thereafter he filed C.D.No.749 of 1991 in the District Forum, Nellore, which, vide its order dated 11.08.1993, directed the second respondent to allot an alternative plot in the Wood Complex as and when it falls vacant as per the norms of APIIC or allot any other plot in similar complex that would come up in the vicinity in future. Thereafter though he made several requests to the respondents to comply with the order passed in his favour, as they are not complying with his request he filed this petition seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent in cancelling the allotment of plot No.80, admeasuring 880.15 sq mts in Wood Complex, Industrial Estate, Dargamitta, Nellore, to him, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequentially to allot that plot to him by cancelling the allotment made to the fourth respondent.
2. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the Manager (Law) of APIIC, Hyderabad, filed his counter affidavit inter alia stating that as per the allotment orders dated 27.7.1988 petitioner was required to pay 50% of the land cost to the Corporation within one month from the date of receipt of the allotment order and execute sale agreement also. Physical possession of the plot would be given within a period of one month from the date of receipt of allotment letter after payment of the amount payable. As he failed to comply with the conditions of allotment within the stipulated period allotment made in favour of the petitioner stood cancelled, and the earnest money deposit made by him was forfeited as per condition No.7 of the allotment order. However, though APIIC reminded the petitioner vide its letter dated 08.09.1988 about 50% of the land cost due and payable by him, as there was no response from the petitioner, he is not entitled to any relief. The contention of the petitioner that he was permitted to occupy plot No.80 of Wood Complex and that he took possession thereof and that he reclaimed it by spending huge amount and constructed a compound wall and dug well are all not true and are denied. The averment that in spite of his coming forward to pay 50% of the cost of the land, the officers of APIIC under the influence of the fourth respondent postponed receipt thereof is not true and is invented for the purpose of this petition. O.S.No.708 of 1989 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 19.07.1996. Even while the said suit was pending, petitioner filed C.D.No.749 of 1991 in the District Consumer Forum, Nellore, seeking allotment of Plot No.80 in his favour, which was disposed of on 11.08.1993 directing APIIC to allot an alternative plot in the Wood Complex as per its norms as and when it falls vacant or to allot another plot in similar complex that may come up in the vicinity in the near future, after
holding that petitioner failed to pay 50% of the value of the plot allotted to him within one month. As the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, the said plot was re-allotted to another. Petitioner who failed to respond to the notices dated 08.09.1988 and 05.11.1988 issued by the APIIC and also failed to pay 50% of the cost of the plot though is not entitled to any further notice, with a view to give another opportunity to him, APIIC vide its letter dated 13.12.1988 requested the petitioner to pay 50% of the cost of the plot together with interest by 31.12.1988 for considering his request for restoration of the allotment. But as there was no response from the petitioner, order of cancellation dated 05.11.1988 remained un-revoked. In reply to the letter dated 28.08.2001 of the petitioner, second respondent vide letter dated 05.10.2001 informed him that plot No.80 was not vacant as the same was re-allotted to another, informing him that in case he wants allotment of another plot he has to submit a fresh application by paying the earnest money deposit and process fee as per the APIIC Allotment Regulations. But, as there was no response from the petitioner, he is not entitled to any relief from the respondents.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that inasmuch as the petitioner is prepared to pay the amount payable at the present market value in the Wood Complex, where, according to him, several plots are lying vacant, as respondents 1 to 3, without considering such request of the petitioner for allotment of a plot in the Wood Complex, had through their letter dated 05.10.2001 informed him that he would be allotted a plot in Autonagar, Nellore, they may be directed to consider his request for allotment of a plot in Wood Complex. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
4. As the prayer in the petition is to declare the action of the respondents in cancelling plot No.80 measuring 880.15 sq. mtrs in Wood Complex, Industrial Estate, Dargamitta, Nellore, vide letter No.13315/DW/D5/82 dated 09.08.1990 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently to direct the respondents to allot the same to him by accepting 50% of the balance cost of the plot, the point for consideration would only be whether the cancellation of the allotment of plot to the petitioner is proper or not.
5. Admittedly, the suit filed by the petitioner for injunction on the basis that he was put in possession of plot No.80 of Wood Complex and that respondents 2, 4 and others are trying to interfere with his possession thereon was dismissed. Petition filed by him in the District Consumer Forum, questioning the cancellation of the plot, was disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider allotment of plot to him as per the norms of APIIC. Having taken recourse to the remedies available to him before a Civil Court and the Consumer Forum, petitioner approaching this Court by way of a writ petition, questioning the cancellation of the plot made as per the Regulations of APIIC, cannot but be said to be an abuse of the process of Court. It is well known that a person who comes to Court with unclean hands and without bona fides would not be granted the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner made a false allegation in the affidavit that he was put in possession of the plot and that he reclaimed the same by spending huge amount. The Civil Court, even according to the learned counsel for petitioner, dismissed the suit for injunction filed on the said basis for non-prosecution. Whether the suit was dismissed on merits or for default, the result, when no petition for setting aside the order of default, is the same
and it has to be taken that the suit was dismissed as the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought. Though the cancellation of the allotment of the plot was in 1990, the writ petition is filed in 2001 i.e. 11 years after the cancellation of plot, is liable to be dismissed not only on the ground of its being an abuse of process of Court but of delay also and so, I find no grounds to grant any relief to the petitioner.
6. Though this is a fit case to award costs as there is no representation on behalf of the respondents, I am not granting costs to the respondents.
7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-------------13.02.2008
Cvrk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the cancellation of a plot allotment is an abuse of the process of court given the petitioner's false allegations.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable after a delay of eleven years from the date of the impugned cancellation order.
Arava Dass
The General Manager, A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corp. Limited
The Zonal Manager, Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited
The fourth respondent
C.Y.Somayajulu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
