Partly allowed

Ss Constructions v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC22 Jun 2022WP/16099/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Corpus set aside unilaterally cancelling a registered sale deed despite alleged breach of conditional sale terms. Court ruled cancellation must be via civil suit. Compensation claim dismissed for lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2020. Compensation claim dismissed as High Court cannot grant it without evidence.

Ss Constructions Vs Telangana State Industrial… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 16099 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 SS Constructions, R/o. Plot No.36 and 37 Sham Lal Layout, Telecom Nagar Gachibowli, Hyderabad Through its Authorised Signatory Sri Chaitanya Kusam.

¶9

2 Sri Chaitnya Kusam, S/o. K. Shiva Reddy, Aged aboul 44 years Occ. Business R!/o. Plot No- 36 and 37 Sham Lal Layout, Telecom Nagar Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

''l . Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd, Medchal - Slddipet Zone Admin Office Jeedimetla Hyderabad. Through its Zonal Manager.

¶13

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, (Earlier Hyderabad Urban Development Authority) Swarna Jayanti Complex Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Rd Srinivasa Nagar Ameerpet Hyderabad - 500 038.

¶14

M/s Rural Education and Development Society, (Formerly Royal Education Society) Plot No. 43A, Road No. 71, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad - 500096

¶15

Greater Hyderabad lt/unicipal Corporation, Office of Chief City Planner Town Planning Section (HO) GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad Represented by its City Planner.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to

¶18

(a) To issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing to set aside the Show Cause Notice Lr. No. ZO/MDCL-SDPT/133/Ph.1 119614241 daled 22nd September 202O.

¶19

(b) To direct Respondent No.^'1 to pay a compensation of Rs. 1 Crore for the loss caused due to stoppage of work, for demolition of parts of the building and causing reputational loss.

¶20

I.A.N O:1 OF 2 021

¶21

Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in ther affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine High court may be preased io :t3y__-1!9^{effect of operation of Show Cause ilotice} Lr. No. ZOIMDCL_ SDPIT1 33/Ph. 11196t4241 dated 22nd September 2020.

¶22

l.A.N():2 oF 2021

¶23

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit.fired in support of the petition, ine Higi, court may ne pteasedio permit the petitioners to carry on with the construcltion activity whici-, .nrli U" subje,:t to the outcome of this writ petition.

¶24

l.A.N( ):.3 OF 2021

¶25

Petition Under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine Higrr court may u" p[u."J t" permil a. The Petitioners-to enter into sare agreements with ihe prospective buyer:; for the residential flats being constructed on the other rroors oituoje"t property baring the first Floor, b. To permit removal of the wall, the barricades and the gate, which were erected by the Respondents obstructing the access to the petitioner's property.

¶26

Couns,el for the Petitioners : SRI.GANDHAM DURGA BOSE

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI.L.pRABHAKAR REDDY

¶28

Gounsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI.V.NARASIMHA GOUO

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 : NONE APPEARED

¶30

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4 : SRI.CHATLA MADHU

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER

¶32

.//
I

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.15O99 of 202L

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSIIC, for respondent No. 1, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, and Sri Chatla Madhu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶37

2l This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶38

"(a) to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing to set aside the Show Cause Notice Lr. No.Zol MDCL-SDPI/ 133/ Ph. 1 I l96l 4241, dated 22.O9.2O2O1

¶39

(b) to direct respondent No.l to pay a compensation of Rs.1 crore for the loss caused due to stoppage of work, for demolition of parts of the building and causing reputational loss; and

¶40

(c) to pass such other order (s) as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶41

The facts that necessary for the purpose of this case are that respondent No.3 herein was allotted land admeasuring 4151 Sq. Yards in Industrial Development Area, Jeedimetla, for the purpose of establishing Industrial Training Institute and a sale deed dated 18.O9.1998 was also executed in favour of

¶42

¶43

¶44

respondent No.3. As the said area was declared as a residential zone, respondent No.3 could not establish the Training Institute and therefore respondent No.3 got converted the land for residential purpose. After paying necessary conversion charges, development charges and after complying all the required formalities by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 issued noobjection to respondent No.3 for usage of the subject land for group housing purpose. Thereafter, respondent No.3 entered into development agreement with Gowtham Sai Infrastructures, which in turn has entered into an agreement with petitioners for construction of residential complex in pursuance of building permit, dated 08.O 1.202O, issued by respondent No.4 and accordingly the petitioners have commenced construction. It is the grievance of the petitioners that after the commencement they came to know about issuance of the impugned notice dated 22.O9.2O2O issued by respondent No. 1 to respondent No.3 stating that the subject land allotted to respondent No.3 was cancelled and the land was resumed with immediate effect, on the ground that the subject land was not used for the purpose for which it was allotted. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. karned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andhra

tr/

Prrrdesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited us. S.N. Raj Kumarl.

¶49

4l A counter has been hled by respondent No. 1 mainly contending that the writ petitioners herein are not parties to the allotment proceedings between respondent No.l and respondent No.3 and therefore they have no locus to file the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned canceliation and resumption order. It is further contended that as the allotted land was not utilized for the purpose for which the same was allotted, the impugned orders are passed. Further, the authorities have no knowledge about the agreements took place between the petitioners and the a-llottees. Respondent No. I after coming to know the construction activity, has addressed a letter dated O8.O7.2021 to the respondent No.4 to withdraw the permissions by bringing to its notice the impugned canceliation proceedings. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶50

Learned Standing Counsel has relied on Indu Kakkar us. Haryana State Industrial Deoelopment Corpordtion Ltd,2 to contend that the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable.

¶51

I (2018) 6 SCC 4rO , (1999) 2 SCC 37

¶52

¶53

Heard and perused the material on record

¶54

7l The main issue before this Court is as to lrhether the Corporation has the power to cancel a registered sale deed unilaterally on its own on the basis of the purported letter, which is impugned in the present writ petition?'.

¶55

Admittedly, in this case, the Corporation has executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 relinquishing ail the rights, title and interest in the subject property. Thereafter, the petitioners have entered into the shoes of respondent No.3 by virtue of a Development Agreement. Even though, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently argued that the sale done in favour of respondent No.3 is a conditional one as envisaged in the agreement of sale entered by the parties wherein there is a clause to the effect that the propertSr, which was agreed to be sold, shall be used for the purpose of setting up an Industrial Training Institute and therefore the Corporation has every right to cancel tJle same if there is any violation of the conditions mentioned in the agreement of sale and the subject sale deed, but, a perusal of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No.3, the terms and conditions of agreement of sale are not made part and parcel of

the registered sale deed nor the registered sale deed is a conditional one. Once the vendor relinquishes his right, title or interest in the property in favour ol the purchaser through a registered sale deed, he cannot cancel the said registered sale deed unilaterally and the only remedy available to the vendor is to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the sale deed but the vendor cannot cancel the registered sale deed on its own that too on the basis of purported letter. Even though, the learned Standing Counsel tried to distinguish the decision relied upon by the petitioner herein, the fact remains that this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases have held that the only remedy under the law for getting the registered sale deed cancelled is to approach the Civil Court for cancellation of the same.

¶60

In Thota Ganga Laxni os. Gouernment of And.hra

¶61

Pradeshs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if any sale deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be uniiaterally executed or registered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to Rule 26(i)(k) of the Registration Rules, 1908, held that it is only w,hen the earlier sale deed is cancelled by a

3 (2010) l5 scc 2o7

competent court can a canceilation deed be registered that too after notice to the concerned parties; and unilateral cancellation of the sale deed, as well as registration thereof, were wholly void, non est and meaningless transactions.

¶66

iO) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S. .l\I. Raj Kutnar (supra), at para 17, has held as under:

¶67

"Section 35 of the Act deals with rights and liabilities of buyer and seller. As per this provision, when the buyer discharges obligations and seller passes/conveys the ownership of the property, the contract is concluded. Thereafter, the liabilities, obligations and rights, if any, between the buyer and seller would be governed by other provisions of the Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act, on the execution of the sale deed. The seller cannot unilaterally cancel the conveyance or sale."

¶68

For the aforementioned reasons and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred decisions, the present impugned letter, Lr.No.ZOlMDCL-SD[rf/133/Ph.11/ 96 / 4241 , dated, 22.O9 .2020, is set aside. Insofar as the 2"d prayer seeking to direct the respondent No.l to pay compensation is concerned, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the question of compensation without there being any evidence on record. It is

I l I

only the Civil Court which can decide the same based on the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant the same. However, it is left open

¶74

to the parties to avail the remedies available under the law.

¶75

l2l Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part.

¶76

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶77

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

Sd/.MOHD.SANAU LLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶79

,.^{.,,, ..,..-}

¶80

SECTION OFFICER

¶81

One Fair Copy to the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY (For His Lordship's Kind Perusal)

¶82

To 1. The Zonal l\Ianager, Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd,

¶83

iledchal - Sjddipet Zone Admin Office Jeedimetla Hyderabad.

¶84

The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, (Eadier Hyderabad Urban Development Authority) Swarna Jayanti Complex San.jeeva Reddy Nagar Rd Srinivasa Nagar Ameerpet Hyderabad - 500 038.

¶85