The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31299 of 2014 Dated 18.10.2014 Between:
Nagulapalli Madhava Rao And …Petitioner The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Rep. by its Executive Director and another.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.V.Padmaja Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Mr.P.Roy Reddy, SC for APIIC (The registry shall mark the presence subject to his filing memo of appearance within two days.) The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceeding in Lr.No.195/76, dated 08-10-2014, of respondent No.2 whereby he has cancelled the allotment of Plot No.A-1 at Industrial Park, Eluru, made in favour of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession thereof.
At the hearing, Mr.P.Roy Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC, has not disputed that the issue raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in ABC India Limited and others vs. A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad and another. The learned Standing Counsel stated that the said judgment was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court and that, however, the issue is now pending before the Supreme Court.
In ABC India Limited (cited supra), this Court held as under:
“Thus, when transfer is completed (on execution of sale deed in case of immovable property) any restriction contained in the transfer deed disentitling the transferee from operating or disposing of his interest would be void and even when such a restriction is created, transferee can enjoy the property ignoring the same. In view of Section 4 of TP Act, all the provisions relating to contracts shall apply to TP Act and, therefore, any transfer or conveyance incorporating restraint clauses would be void and the purchaser can ignore such clauses.
…..
Some of the reasons for holding that Writ Petitions are maintainable are also relevant for this point. In Yanala Malleshwari (12 supra), the Full Bench held that when once a document is registered by the Registering Authority, the remedy is to seek cancellation of such deed by filing a suit for cancellation of document or by filing a suit for appropriate declaration. The only exception being a case where fraud is alleged in the registration of a document by a person, who is not competent to transfer the property. Even in such a case, Registering Authority can cancel the earlier sale, after notice to the parties. Without following such procedure, APIIC cannot cancel the allotment nor determine the sale agreement and sale deed. Such a course of action is not permissible.”
In view of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for APIIC and following the judgment in ABC India Limited (cited supra), this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding in Lr.No.195/76, dated 08-10-2014, issued by respondent No.2, is set aside. It is, however, made clear that this order shall be subject to the result of the the appeal filed against the judgment in ABC India Limited (cited supra), which is stated to be pending before the Supreme Court.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.39121 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 18th October, 2014 LUR