M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders, Guntur v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Counsel for the respondents: Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Revenue 1. G.P. for Revenue G.P. for Agriculture 2. G.P. for Agriculture Manohar Reddy (S.C. for G.M.C.) 3. M. Manohar Reddy (S.C. for G.M.C.) Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Agricultural 4. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Agricultural Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel For Agricultural Marketing Committees Marketing Committees The Court made the following: The Court made the 6 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch APHC010641062023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.32979 of 2023 Writ Between: Pruthvi Raj Sand and others Pruthvi Raj Sand and others ...Petitioners ...Petitioners The State of Andhra Pradesh and others The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Counsel for the petitioners: Chittala 1. Jamadagni Chittala Counsel for the respondents: Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Home (A.P.) 1. G.P. for Home (A.P.) Rajendra Babu 2. A. Rajendra Babu Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural 3. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees Marketing Committees G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) 4. G.P. for Agriculture (A.P.) Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C.) 5. B. Prakasam (Sr. S.C. for A. M. C.) The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 7 BSB, J W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch W.P.No.18553 of 2019 and batch APHC010401112024 PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of February two thousand and twenty six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.20525 of 2024 Writ Petition No.20525 of 2024 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders ...Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh and others The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Counsel for the petitioner: Rajendra Babu 1. A. Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondents: Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Agriculture 1. G.P. for Agriculture Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural 2. Gangisetty Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Rajeswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Agricultural Marketing Committees Marketing Committees Chittala 3. Jamadagni Chittala The Court made the following: The Court made the following: 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 W.P.No.18568/2019 M/s. Sri Surya Chillies Traders W.P.No.20324/2019 Pruthvi Raj Sand W.P.No.2171/2021 Mangilal W.P.No.3673/2021 Pruthvi Raj Sand For delivery possession of plot No.B3/276. For delivery possession of plot No.B3/277. declare To dt. Rc.No.940/2018, 06.02.2019 as illegal and not to dispossess from plot No.B3/276. To declare resolution No.156 consequential Rc.No.940/2018, dt. 06-02-2019 as illegal and to survey and fix boundaries of plot No.B3/277. To survey and 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 W.P.No.20525/2024 M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders W.P.No.22264/2020 (dismissed as withdrawn) Mangilal To declare action of the A.M.C. allowing M/s. Sri Venkateswara Traders No.B3/276 and police threatening petitioners to settle the issue as illegal. To declare seizure of plot No.B3/276 by respondents as illegal to permit petitioner to continue to do business therein. prevent To high- handed dispossession from plot No.B3/277.

2. a. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: 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 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, 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 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 respondents to consider 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 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