Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad an v. E. Ramulu & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In this batch of cases, the writ petitioners/allottees hold registered sale deeds with regard to their respective plots. APIIC having executed sale deeds could not have taken action for cancellation of the allotment unilaterally. Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act declares such…
Judgment
Counsel for the Appellants: MR. B.P. MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR. S. SRINIVAS REDDY MR. M.V. DURGA PRASAD MR. J. PRABHAKAR MR. S. BALACHANDER MR. K. RAGHUVEER REDDY MR. M.V.S. SURESH KUMAR MR. T. DURGA REDDY MR. S. RAVI MS Y.N. LOHITHA MR. M.A. ASHFAQ MOHINUDDIN MR. A.K. NARASIMHA RAO MR. B. CHANDRASEN REDDY MR. MILIND G GOKHALE The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, the Acting Chief Justice) WAMP.Nos.2123, 2124, 2146, 2147, 2148, 2149, 2150, 2151, 2152, 2157, 2160, 2161, 2162, 2163, 2168, 2170 and 2174 of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavits, since sufficient cause is made out, delay is condoned. WA(SR).Nos.139483, 139495, 139566, 139573, 141080, 141086, 141092, 141099, 141124, 141151, 141158, 141195, 141390, 141435, 141759, 141766 and 141792 of 2012 This batch of cases questions the common order of the learned single Judge in WP.No.2806 of 2006 and batch dated 20.04.2011. All the said writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge following the decision of another learned single Judge in an identical batch of 22 writ petitions involving the very same question, being WP.No.7320 of 2006 and batch tiled as ABC INDIA LIMITED v. ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED [2010 (6) ALT 142] dated
16.07.2010. The said batch of cases was appealed against by APIIC in W.A.No.874 of 2011 and batch. The said appeals were heard and dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 01.02.2012 thereby the ratio in ABC INDIA LIMITED, referred to above, stands upheld.
#2. In the present batch of cases also identical question is raised and in all respects the facts as well as the question of law involved is identical to the aforesaid batch of appeals.
#3. In this batch of cases, the writ petitioners/allottees hold registered sale deeds with regard to their respective plots. APIIC having executed sale deeds could not have taken action for cancellation of the allotment unilaterally. Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act declares such restraint as void and the purchasers are entitled to enjoy the property without any restrictions. The aforesaid ratio being based upon a decision of the Supreme Court in INDU KAKKAR v. HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD [1] , there are no merits in this batch of appeals. The writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ ___________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 22, 2012 DSK [1]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.