Dismissed

M/s Sree Krishna Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. The Indian Railway Welfare Organization ( Irwo) and 4 Others

Telangana HC12 Sept 2022WA/285/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed writ appeals filed by the Industrial Corporation and a Housing Society against the Single Judge's order. The division bench upheld the validity of allotting land after cancelling a Society's bid for default, but quashed a subsequent cancellation of allotment favoring IRWO for being a non-speaking order.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s Sree Krishna Mutually Aided Co-operative Housing… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

'HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH^{DAYOF SEPTEIVBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{UJJAL BHUYAN} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶5

WRIT AP PEAL Nos.1187 of 2018: 481. 484 of 2019 and 285 ot 2020

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1187 OF 2018

¶7

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters^{Patentpreferred against order} dated 04-'10-20'1 7 in W.P.No.17O77 of^{2005 on the file of the High Court.} Between:

¶8

1 A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd.,^{(presentlyTelanganalndustrial} lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd.,), Rep.^{by its Vice Chairman andManaging} Director, Parishram Bhavan, Fateh Maidan Road,^Hyderabad.

¶9

2 A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation^{Ltd., (presentlyTelangana lndustrial} lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd.,), Rep. by^{Executive DirectorEstates and} Admn.), Parishram Bhavanr Fateh l/aidan^{Road, Hyderabad}

¶10

3 A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation^{Ltd., (presentlyTelangana lndustrial} lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd.,) Rep- by its Zonal Manager,^ZonalOffice. Moulaali, Hyderabad.

¶11

4 Telangana lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation^{Ltd., Rep. by its Vice} Chairman and Manaqing Director, Parishram Bhavan,^{Fateh Maidan Road,} Hyderabad.

¶12

(Appellant No.4 was impleaded as per court order dated 07-03-2016ⁱⁿ w P'M'P'No 24890 of 201 5) ...Appellants/Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The lndian Railway Welfare Organisation^(IRWO), New^{Delhi, A society} registered under the Societies Regn. Act. XXI of^{186O Rep. by its Chief} Project Manager, South Central Zone, DRM Office Compound,^{Opp. Rail} Nilayam, Secunderabad.

¶15

....Respondent/Writ Petitioner

¶16

2 Sri Krishna Mutually Aided Coop. Housing^{SocietyLtd.,Rep. by its Secretary} G. Raghavaiah, S/o. Bojji Naidu, Plot No.^{121/2,lDA,Charlapally, Phase-ll,} Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

(Respondent No.2 was impleaded as^per court order dated 28-0'1-2006ⁱⁿ W.P.M.P.No.33455 of^2O15)

¶18

...RespondenURespondent No.4

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 2018

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} permit the Appellant Corporation to allot the land adm. Ac.5-40^{gts., lDA,} Cherlapally, Hyderabad for industrial establishment^{by suspending the operation} of^judgment dl.O4-10-2O17 in W.P.No.17077^{of 2005 pending disposal of this} appeal.

¶21

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI A. SANJEEV^KUMARFOR SRI. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR^TSIIC

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI^{K.V.SIMHADRI, SENIOR COUNSELFOR} SRI MEKAPOTHULA SRINIVASA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.2.^{SRI PRABHAKAR SRIPADA}

¶24

WRIT APPEAL NO: 48'l OF 2019

¶25

Wdt Appeal under Clause¹⁵ of the^{Letters Patentprefened against the order} dated O4t1OlZOl 7 in the W.P.No.7581 of^{2004 on the file of the High Court.}

¶26

Between:

¶27

M/s Sree Krishna lr/utually^{Aided Cooperative HousingSociety Limited,A} coooerative society reqister'ed under^{the provisions of the A.P.MutuallyAided} Cooperative societi'es A;t. 1995 At Plot^{No.12112lDA. Cherlapally Phase ll. Medchel} District Rep by its Secretary K Appi^{Reddy,S/o Lale Sri K Pitchireddy aged 63ye1s} C/o. M/s Sri Anjaneo Polymers lndia^{Pvt Ltd., Plot no. 194/'10Phase - ll, IDA} chedapally Hyderabad.

¶28

...APPELLANT

¶29

AND

¶30

1 . Telangana State lndustrial^{lnfrastructureCorpo-rationLimited,} -Rep^{by its Vice} Chairian anc Managing Director^{Parishrama Bhavan,Fateh MaidanRoad'} Hyderabad

¶31

T6langana State lndustrial^{lnfrastructure-Corporation Limited,Rep.by its} Execritive Director (Estates and Admn)^{ParishramaBhavan,Fateh Maidan} Road Hyderabad

¶32

Telangana State lndustrial^{lnfrastructure Corporation Limited,Rep by its} Zonal-Manager, Zonal Office,^{Shamsha bad' Hyderabad.}

¶33

4 lndian Railway Welfare^{Organisation (IRWO) New Delhi'a the Society Regd} unOer tne Soiieties^{Registiation Act XXIof 1860 Rep by its Chief Proiect} ttl"nig"r, South^{Centra'iZone,DRMOfficer CompoundOppRail Nilayam'} Secunderabad

¶34

...RESP.NDENTS

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI A.P. VENU GOPAL FORSMT'CH' VEDAVANI} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 to 3: SRI A. SANJEEV KUMARFOR} SRI, L. PRABHAKAR REDDY^{SC FOR TSIIC}

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.4: SRI K.V. SIMHADRI, SENIoR CoUNSELFoR} SRI MEKAPOTHULA^SRINIVASARAO

¶37

WRIT APPEA L NO:^{484OF 2019}

¶38

writ Appeal under^{clause 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred against the order} daled O4l1Ot2O1^{7 in W.P.No.5a76oi 2004 on the file of the High Court'}

¶39

Between:

¶40

M/s Sree Krishna^{tr/lutuallyAided cooperative Housing s_oqqty Limited..A} .oJp"iitir" sotiety^{,egisteraOunder the} Olo_vilgns-^{of the A.P.Mutually.Aided} ioooerative societi'es A;t. 1995^{At PlotNo.12112lDA. Cherlapally Phase ll. lvledchel} c7i. Oistfict i/irtri nep by^,4ii"n"yj its Secretary^{p,ityrn"|d K Appi rnaia Reddy. Pvt S/o, t-t0., Late Sri K ptor no. Pitchireddy.aged 194/10Phase - 63 yearsll, IDA} Cherlapally Hyderabad.

¶41

...APPELLANT

¶42

AND

¶43

Telangana State^{lndustrial lnfrastructurecorpo_rationLimited, Rep by its Vice} Cniirirjn and Managing^{Director Parishrama Bhavan, Fateh Maidan} Road.,Hyderabad.

¶44

1. T;la;.qrfi; giecuiive oirector Siate^{lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited,} (Estates and Admn) parishrama Bhavan, Fateh^{Rep by} Maidan^its Road Hyderabad

¶45

a. fEGngina St;te^{lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Limited, Rep by its} Zonal"Manager, Zonal^Office ,^{Moulali,Hyderabad'}

¶46

...RESPONDENTS

¶47

CounselfortheAppellant:SRIA.P.VENUGOPALFORSMT'CH'VEDAVANI

¶48

Counsel forthe Respondents:^{SRI A. SANJEEV KUMARFOR} SRI. L. PRABHAKAR^{REDDY SC FOR TSIIC}

¶49

WRIT APPE AL NO: 285OF²⁰²⁰

¶50

writ Appeal under clause^{.15 of the Letters Patent preferredagainst the order} dated O4l1Ol2O1^{7 in W.P.No.17077of 2005 on the file of the High Court}

¶51

Between:

¶52

M/s Sree Krishna^{tiilutuallyAidedco-operative Housing SocietyL_imited,^A} ioooerative societv reqister-ed^{underthe provisionsofA.P. lt/utuallyAided Co-} ;;;;il; Societies Alct. 1995 Plot No.^{12112, IDA CherlapallvPhase-ll,} l\rietchalMalkalg iri District^{Represented by its Secretary Sri._KAppi Reddy_S/o Late} Sri.-K. Neiff Re6Oy Rgea.^{03 years,C/o M/s Sri. Anjaneya Polymerslndia Pvt. Ltd.,} ptot NO. 190/10 ihas;- ll. IDA cherlapally, Hyderabad.Appe[anuRespondent

¶53

No.4

¶54

AND

¶55

The lndian Railway^{Welfare Organization ( IRW-O), RailwayOffices complex,} Shivaji Bridge,⁽ B6hind Shanker^{Market),New Delhi Represented by its} Project Manager.

¶56

....Respondent No.1 /VVrit Petitioner

¶57

A.P.lndustrial lnfrastructure^{corporationLimited, (Presently TelanganaState} lnfrastructure corporation^Limited )^{Represented_by_ its vice chairmanand} Managing Directoi^{Parishrama Bhavan'Fateh/aidanRoad, Hyderabad}

¶58

S. A.p tiOu"stria, lnfrastructure^{Corporation Limited, (Presently TelanganaState} lnfrastructure corporation^{L[mited,)Represented by its ExecutiveDirector (} Estates and Admi;istration)'Parishrama^{Bhavan' Flitch Maidan Road,} Hyderabad.

¶59

4 A:.P.lndustria' lnfrastructure Corporation^{Limited, (Presently TelanganaState} lnfrastructure Corporation Limited,)^{Represented by its ZonalManager,Zonal} Office Moulali, Hyderabad.

¶60

The Telangana State^{lnfrastructure Corporation Limited, Represented by its} Vice Chairinan and Managing^{Director Parishrama Bhavan,Fateh Maidan} Road' HYderabad'

¶61

...RESPoNDENT'

¶62

lA NO: 4 OF 2020

¶63

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the Highcourtmay be pleasedto} suspend the orders dated^{04.10.2017in w.P.NO"17077 of 2005 in the interestsof} justice, as otherwise the petitioner will be^put to irreparable^{loss and injury.}

¶64

lA NO: 5 OF 2020

¶65

Between:

¶66

The lndian Railway^{welfare organization (} IRWO),^{Railway.office:complex, shivaii} Bridge, ( Behind Shanker^{Market), New Delhi Representedby its Project Manager.}

¶67

...Petitioner/'l't Respondent

¶68

AND

¶69

1 l,4/s Sree Krishna lvlutually Aided Co-operative^{Housing Sociely Limited,A} cooperative society registered^{underthe provisions-OfA.P tVlutuallyAided Co-} opeiative Societies Act, 1995^Plot No^{12112, IDA CherlapallyPhase-ll,} NiedchalMalkajgiri District Represented^{by its SecretarySri. K. AppiReddy} S/o Late Sri. K. Neill Reddy Aged.^{63 years, C/otr4/s Sri. Anjaneya Polymers} lndia Pvt. Ltd., Plot NO. 190/10 Phase-^{ll, IDA Cherlapally, Hyderabad.}

¶70

2 A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation^{Limited,(Presently Telangana State} lnfrastructure Corporation^Limited )^{Representedby its Vice Chairman and} IVanaging Directoi Parishrama Bhavan,^{Fateh fi/aidanRoad,Hyderabad}

¶71

3 A.P. l;du-strial lnfrastructure Corporation^{Limited,(Presently Telangana State} lnfrastructure Corporation Limited,)^{Representedby its ExecutiveDirector (} Estates and Admihistration) Parishrama^{Bhavan, Flitch lt/aidan Road'} Hyderabad.

¶72

4 A.P. lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation^{Limited,(Presently Telangana State} lnfrastructure Corporation^{Limited,)Representedby its ZonalManager,Zonal} Office Moulali, Hyderabad.

¶73

5 The Telanqana State lnfrastructure^{Corporation Limited, Represented by its} Vice Chairinan and Managing Director^{ParishramaBhavan' Fateh Maidan} Road' Hyderabad'

¶74

... Responde nts/Respondents

¶75

Petition under Section¹ 51^{CPC prayinqthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto} vacate the common interim orders^{dated 16/09/2o20passed in W.A.No.2BS of} 2020.

¶76

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI^{A.P.VENU GOPAL FORSMT.CH. VED^AVANI}

¶77

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRI K.V. SIMHADRI, SENIOR COUNSELFOR} SRI MEKAPOTHULA SRINIVASA RAO

¶78

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.2to 4: SRI A. SANJEEV KUMAR FOR} SRI. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR TSIIC

¶79

The Court delivered the following:^{COMMON JUDGMENT}

¶80

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶81

AND

¶82

TT{E HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶83

\tr/RIT AI'PEAL Nos.1187 of

¶84

285 of 2O2O

¶85

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hotl ble the ClrIfJusti& Ullal Bhuyatr)

¶86

This judgment will dispose of the four writ appeals

¶87

We harre heard Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, Iearned counsel for the appellants in W.A.No.1 187 of 201.8 and Mr. A.P.Venu Gopa1, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A.Nos..lB1, 484 of 2019 anC 2BS ol 2O2O. Also heard Mr. K.V.Simhadri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO)

¶88

All these appeals arise out of the common order dated 04.1O.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.Nos.5B76 and 758 1 of 2OO4 filed by M/s. Sree Krishna Mu tually Aided Cooperative Society Limited (appellalt in W.A.Nos.48 1, 484 cf 2079 and 285 <tf 2O2Ol, br:t allorving W.P.No.l't077 oi 2005 filed by IRWO

¶89

Thus from the^{above it is seen that as against the} common order^{disposingof the three writ petitions, one} writ appeal has^{been filed by the State (Andhra Pradesh} Industrial Infrastructure^{CorporationLimited, no\ r} Telangana Industrial^{Infrastructure Corporation Limited)} (APIIC) and the other^{three writ appeals have been fiied by} M/s. Sree Krishna^{MutuallyAided Co-operativeHousing} Society Limited^{(hereinafter referred to as, "the Society")'}

¶90

Facts leading to Iiiing^{ol the three writ petitionswere} summed up by the^{iearned Single Judge in the following} marlner:

¶91

The Andhra Pradesh^{Industrial lnfrastructure} Corporation Limited^{(for short 'APIICI'),initially, on the} request of M/s.sree^{Krishna Mutually Aidedco-} operative Housing^{Society Limited(for short "the} Society"), petitioners^{in WP Nos.5876 & 75a1 of 2OO4,} vide letter, dated 13.03.2003,^{has allottedan extent of} 5.4O acres of^land at^{IDA, Cherlapally Phase-IIfor} purpose of construcLion^{of houses for its members,} @Rs.500/-^{per squaremeter, subject to the condition} that the members of the^{Society should have an} industrial unit at IDA, Charlapally,^{anddirectedto pay} the sale consideration of^Rs. 109.24^{lakhs \Mithin 90}

rrrr-rrE7

.-1

da1,s. The Society made three representations to the APIi'l on 28.05.2003, 18.07.2003 and 03.02.2004 duly m:rkir-rg part payment of Rs.25.0O lakhs and requested APIIC to reduce the land cost, in view of 40% of land would go towards roads and would be kept unutilized for residentra-I plots, but the same was not considered by APIItl. Further, APIIC, vide letter dated 12.03.2004 calcelled the allotment made in favour of the Society on the ground that the Society failed to fuliill the conditions

¶96

stiprrlated in letter dated 24.04.2003. Challenging the said cancellation order, the Society filed W.P.No.5876 of 2OO4. Al the stage of admission of the writ petition, this Cour-t grarrted interim order of stcltus quo.

¶97

In the meanwhile, APIIC, vide letters dated 2O.O3.2O04 & 06.04.2004 allotted the same land of an extent of Ac.5.40 gts in favour of the Indian Railway Welfare Organization (for short "IRWOJ for an amount of Rs. i ,99,26,36 t /-. Queslioning the said aliotment, the Socit-'ty filed W.P.No.7581 of 2OO4 ard in that w t petition also, this Court granted interim order of status quo.

¶98

¶99

The Indian Railway Welfare Organization, New Delhi filed W.P.No.17077 of 2005, stating that on their request, the APIIC allotted land of an extent of Ac.5.40 gts for construction of houses for railway men both for serving as well as retired on outright sa-le basis for an amount of Rs.1,99,26,4611- and in terms of the allotment letters, dated 2O.O3.2OO4 and O6.04.2004, the IRWO paid the entire sale consideration, as agreed. But surprisingly, vide letter dated 06.06.2005, the APIIC cancelled the sard allotment without assigning any

I I

reasons and refunded thc amount. Qucstioning^{the said} carcellation proceedings, the^{IRWOfiled thc writ} petition."

¶104

All the three writ petitions^{\'ere contested b,v the} APIIC by liling counter^affidavits.

¶105

¶106

Le.arned Single Judge vide order^{dated l7-O9.2O14} had allowed W.P.No.17O77 of^{2OO5 filed by IRWO by} setting aside the cancellation of^{allotmentorder in favour of} IRWO. On the same day i.e., on^{17.O9-2O14the two writ} petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.5876 and 758¹ of 2004^{filed by the} Society were dismissed-^{The Societythereafter preferred} appea-ls, being W.A.No.l442, 1454^{and l48O of 2014,} raising a technical plea that on the^{date of passing orders} in the writ petitions, there was bifurcation^{of the composite} state of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore,^{APIIC had no interest} in the matter. Instead, the competent^{authoritywas the} Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure^Corporation Limited. The appeals^{were allowedby the appellate Court} wherea-fter the writ^{petitions wereremandedfor} I I adjudication afresh.

¶107

-i

¶108

B. On remand, learned Single Judge framed the follou.ing two points for consideration:

¶109

"l) Whether the Inrr.astructure ""r0".r,,"::t:orr"r,^{ir,"H, ;:*l.l:} M/s.Sree Krishna Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limite d on i3.03.20O3 and subsequently cancelting the same on L2.O3.2OO4 on the ground that the society failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the .r.uol mcnt letter in not making the paJment within the stipulated time and allotting the same larld to the Indian Raihvay Welfare Organization (IRWO) is justified? and 2) wherher the ailotment of the land to IRWo on 2O.O3.2OO4 and subsequently cancelling the same on 06.06.2005 is liable to be set aside since it is cancelled without assigning any reason or giving any show cause notice?''

¶110

9 As rvould be evident from the above, the first issue for consideration was whether ApIIC was justified in first allotting the land to the Socieg on 13.03.2003 and thereafter c.mcelling the same on 12.03.2004 on the ground that the said Society had tailed to adhere to the terms and conditions ol allotment. Corollar5z to the above lssue as framed by the learned Single Judge was whether after cancelling the allotment to the Society, the appellant

¶111

¶112

was^justified in allotting^{the same plot of land to IRWO'} After a detailed analysis^{of facts, learned Single Judge held} as foilou,s:

¶113

"19. A perusal of the above facts^{clearly show that the} petitioner/ socicty has violated the^{terms and conditions} of the allotment not only^{in the matter of paymcntof the} cost of the land within the^{stipulated timebut also the} other conditions imposed^{in the letter of allotment.}

¶114

The competence,^{authorityarrd right ofthe} respondent/ Corporation^{to cancel the a-llotment ifthe} terms and conditions are^{not complied with within the} stipulated time is^{well settled.There are catenaof} authoriLies which^{1ay down that the allotment calbe} cancelled if the allottee^fals to^{comply with the terms} ald conditions.' '

¶115

After referring to various^{case laws, learnedSingle} Judge took the view that^{if the allottee fails to complywith} the terms and conditions^{ofallotment,theallotting} authority would be^{competent to cancelthe allotment'It} was held as follows:

¶116

"25.^'fhe above authorities^{which havedirect} bearing to the facts^of the^{case in hand clearly laid down} that if the allottee^{fails to comply with the termsarld} conditions of the a-llotment letter, the

¶117

¶118

I J

¶119

respondent/ Corporation^{iscompctent tocancei the} allotment which^{cannot be chailenged'}

¶120

Lr the^{instantcase,as alreadl'stated,the land} was rilslotted to^{the petitioner/ societyon24 'O4 '2003} ancl for nearly^{ten months insteadofmaklngthe} payment of about^{Rs.i.1Ocrores,the petitioner/ society} requested the Corporation^{to reduce the cost of landand} start€rd negotiations^{aldbargainingon the grounds} which were^{not open to them. lnspite of the request} being rejected^{by the Corporationemd society being} ca1le<1 upon to^{fulhl the terms and conditions of the} allotment letter,^{the petitioner/ society has once again} reiterated their^{previous requestby offeringa different} rate per square^{meteras aga.instthe rate hxed by the} Corporation.^{Therefore, the impugnedordercanceliing} the allotment^{in favour of the petitioners/ society cannot} be interfered with.

¶121

Once the cancellation made bY the favour of the respondent / Corporationⁱⁿ petitioner/ societY is held^tobe valid, they cannot question the allotment^{of the self-same land to another} organization^{as has been done in the instantcase' After} cancelling the^{allotment in} favour of the petitioner/ society,^{the respondent/Corporation allotted} the same land^{to IRWO for a totalconsideration of about} Rs.1.99 crores,^{whichwas also subsequently cancelled} and which is the^{subjectmatter of W P'No' 17O77 of} 20O5. In^{viewof the above, there are no merits in the} - writ petitions filed by the petitioner/ society and

¶122

¶123

¶124

therefore W.P.Nos.5876 and^{7581of 2OO4 are liableto} be dismissed."

¶125

¶126

1 1. Insofar the second issue,^{namelywhetherallotment} of land to IRWO on 20.03.2OO4^{a-rtd subsequent} cancellation of the same on^{06.06.2005withoutassigning} any reason or^giving any^{show causenoticewas justified,} learned Single Judge noted that^{from the year 2002, IRWO} was requesting for a-1lotment of land in Survey^{No. 184} which was abutting the land that was allotted^{to IRWO} where they had already constructed^{151 dwellingunits for} the benefit of in-service and retired^{empioyeesof Indian} Railways. Since there was more^{demand for house sites,} IRWO was requesting the State Government/APllc^{to allot} more land for construction of additional dwelling^units. After cancelling the allotment in favour^{of the Society,} APIIC allotted the said land to IRWO on 20.03.2004.^Cost of the land was determined at^{Rs. 1,80,29,385.00at the} rate of Rs.B2S.OO per square metre. Subsequently,^on measurement of the land, the total^{cost of the land allotted} to IRWO was enhanced to^{Rs. 1,99,26,461.O0'Pursuant to} the original allotment letter, IRWO had^paid

¶127

l )

¶128

Rs. 1,80,29.385.00 to the APIIC u,irhin ten days of the allotment. When the aclditional amount was demanded on 06.O4.2OO4,IRWO paid the same on2l.O4.2OO4. Though IRWO s,as given ninety days time to pay the amount, it paid the entire amount including the additional amount within one month. However, the allotment was abruptly cancelied on 06.06.2005. Learned Single Judge noted that no reasons were mentioned in the calcellation order. But in the counter affidavit, stand taken by APIIC r.r,as that it had taken a policy decision to the effect that vacant land earmarked for housing in the industrial areas should be put to industrial use only, in view of the growing demand for industrial land. Learned Single Judge found as a matter of lact that no such conditions were incorporated in the allotment letter dated, 2O.03.2OO4. That apart, the cancellation order was without any reasons. Accordingly, the order dated 06.06.2005 cancelling the allotment in favour of IRWO was set aside. Learned Single Judge heldO/ as follows:

¶129

"30. As per the terms ard conditions of the provisional allotn-.ent letter, the allottee was required to pay the \

¶130

¶131

consideration $rithin ninety days but the same was paid within one month. No other terms ald conditions of the a.llotment appeared to h ave been violated by the petitioncr/IRWo.

¶132

Even though in the order cancelling the allotment, no reasons whatsoever are mentioned but in the detailed counter that is filed by the respondent/ Corporation in the writ petition it is stated that the respondent/Corporation has taken a policy decision that the vacalt land earmarked for housing in the industrial areas should be put to industrial use only, in view of the growing demald for industrial land. As per the terms artd conditions of the allotment letter dated 20.03.2004, no such condition is mentioned that the respondent/ Corporation is reserving the right to cancel the allotment on the ground which is mentioned in the counter aflid4vit.

¶133

Without issuing arry show cause notice, for no reasons, whatsoever, the responclent/ Corporation has calcelled the allotment by a cryptic three line letter which is arbitrary arrd cannot be countenanced. Even though tJ.e respondent/Corporation is having authority to cancel the allotment, but the same should be for the reasons to be stated in the order, but it cannot be an arbitrary cancellation. Therefore, the order cancelling the allotment in favour of IRWO, dated 06.06.2OO5, cannot be sustained arrd the same is liable to be set aside. The writ petition frled by IRWO is therefore to be allowed. "

Consequently, the tr.r,o r,r,rit petitions liled by the Society u,ere dismissed ancl the u,rit petition liled bv IRWO was allov..ed.

¶138

In the course of the hearing our attention was clrawn to the cancellation letter dated 06.06.2005, which reads as follows:

¶139

"To The Chief Project Manager, Indinn Railway Welfare Orgalrisation, South Central Zone, DRM Office Compound, OPP: Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad - 500 07 1.

¶140

Sir

¶141

Sub: IDA Cherlapally, pH tl Allotment of Housing land to IRWO Cancellation Orders issued - Reg.

¶142

Ref: I. LR No. 1146 I/tDA/CHpl2OO4 DT.20_03_ 2004 .

¶143

LR No. 1 146 t / tDA/ CHp /2oO4 DT.06_04_ 2004.

¶144

-o-

¶145

With reference to the subject cited, the a.llotment of 5.40 Acres of land made in favour of M/S. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation at IDA _ Cherlapally for construction of Houses is hereby^{.,CANCELLED,,.} The amount paid by you will be refunded in due course.,,

¶146

<br>

¶147

¶148

As rightly^{held by the iearned Single Judge no} reasons were^{assigned in the letter dated06'06'2005as to} rvhy allotment^{madein favour of IRWOwas cancelled'}

¶149

When APIIC^{had allottedland in favour of IRWO,} whereafter IRWO^{had paid theentireconsideration,} including additional^{consideration,a right had accrued in} favour oi IRWO.^{By the aforesaid letter, such right accrued} in favour of^{IRWO stood infringed' Itwas therelore} necessary that^{the cancellation order was required to be a} speaking order-^{In other words, the order should speak for} itself containing^{the r6asons as to why cancellation was} resorted to.^{Insteadof doing that, some reasonswere} mentioned in the^{counter aflidavit stating that a policy} decision was taken^{to earmark vacant land to be put to} industrial use^on1Y.

¶150

First artd^{foremost,it is a settled proposition of law} laid down^{as early as in Commissionerof Police, Bombay} v. Gordhandas Bhanjir,^{which has been followedby the} Constitution Bench^{of the Supreme Court in Mohinder}

I AtR 1952 SC 16

I I

Singh Gill v. The^{Chief Election Commissionerzthat an} order must speak for itseif and it cannot^{be j} ustilied^by additional grounds given later in the lorm of aflidavit etc.

¶155

17 . Second important aspect is that even if such a^policy decision has been taken, it could not have been given retrospective elfect to adversely impact the rights which had accrued to an allottee in the meanwhile.

¶156

Regarding cancellation of allotment made to the earlier allottee i.e., the Society, there is a clear finding of fact that the Society"had not complied with the conditions of allotment. As against the requirement to deposit more thal a crore of rupees, it had deposited only Rs.25.00 lakhs. Even though more than ten months had elapsed, no further amounts were paid. Instead, it was found that the Society was negotiating and bargaining u,ith APIiC to allow it to pay the entire amount in instaiments. Thus the terms and conditions of allotment were not complied with by the Society; rightly the a-liotment was carcelled. -- Therefore, on thorough consideration oi al1 aspects of the

2 (1576]. 1 SCC 405

matter, we do not find any error or infirmity^{in the view} taken by the learned Single Judge. Order^passeciby the learned Single Judge is a well^{reasoned one and no} interference is called for.

¶161

Consequently, all the rvrit appeals^{are dismissed.}

¶162

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any,^shal1 stand closed. There sha1l be^{no orderas} to^costs.

¶163

I l

¶164

SD/-K.SHYLESHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶165

To'1. one CC to Sri L. Prabhakai Reddv, SC FoR TSIIC [gl!.qli. O;; CC io Sri Mekapothula^{Sriniv'asa Rao,Advocat^e-[OPUC]} 5. One CC to Sri^{Prabhakar Sripada, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶166

+. One CC to Smt. Ch. Vedavani,^Advocate [OPUC] {.^{Two CD Copies} 6.^{One Spare CoPy} CHR PS ,N\D-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210912022

COMMON JI.JDGMENT

.IA TE
Ct..}
13 liJ 2m
"
:i'

¶171

W.A.Nos.1187 of 2018; 481,484 ot²⁰¹⁹ and 285 of 2020