This group of 22 cases can conveniently be disposed of by a common order in view of the factual background and the issues that arise for adjudication are almost similar. All the petitioners were allotted industrial plots by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC or Corporation, for brevity), respondent No.1, two decades ago. Sale deeds were also executed transferring title in immovable property in their favour. Half a decade thereafter on the ground that the allot-tees flouted the conditions of allotment and agreement of sale, which preceded sale deeds, the allotment was cancelled, aggrieved by which, the present writ petitions are filed.

2. Taking W.P.No.7320 of 2006 as illustrative case, the factual background in little more detail may be noticed. The petitioner in W.P.No.7320 of 2006 is a Company engaged in transport business all over India. They have branch Office in Visakhapatnam. APIIC developed Industrial Estate, Pedagantyada (hereafter called, IE). The second respondent, namely the Zonal Manager, APIIC, by letter dated 25.09.1987 allotted 2322.58 square metres comprised in plot No.192 at a rate of 60/-per square metre for construction of godown for petitioner's transport business. By 11.12.1987 the petitioner paid Rs.1,39,354.80 ps. The allotment letter was followed by an agreement of sale on 11.12.1987 between the petitioner and APIIC. Twelve years thereafter, on 08.10.1999 APIIC executed sale deed which was registered by the second respondent.

3. The petitioner alleges that APIIC did not provide basic infrastructure facilities like roads, water, electricity, and therefore, the plot could not be utilized for the purpose for construction of godown. It is also the case of the petitioner that APIIC provided road, electricity, water only in 2006. The petitioner then applied seeking permission for construction of godown to Industrial Area Local Authority (IALA) i.e., Zonal Manager. By letter dated 20.01.2006 the Corporation approved the building permission. The petitioner commenced construction. At that stage, second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 10.08.2005 calling upon the petitioner company to show cause as to why the allotment of the plot should not be Cit cell as to why the agreement of sale and s, deed be determined, and as to why the petitioner should not be evicted from the premises to make available the industrial plot for utilization for industrial use by a needy entrepreneur. The petitioner statedly submitted explanation. The second respondent then passed the impugned order dated 28.03.2006 duly determining the agreement of sale dated 11.12.1987 and sale deed dated 08.10.1999.

4. It may be noted that most of the petitioners in this group of cases are transport companies and so as to accommodate all such companies at one place, APIIC allotted industrial plots for construction of transport offices and godowns. Various details of all the petitioners are reflected in the following tabular column.

Statement showing the particulars of allotment, agreement of sale, sale deed, show cause notice and date of cancellation

(All the petitioners are allot-tees of plots in Industrial Estate, Pedagantyada)

S1. Writ Plot Area in Cost Date of

No Petition No Sq. Mts. Paid Allotment

No per

Sq. Mt

1. 7320/2006 192 2322.58 60/- 25.09.1987

2. 7321/2006 173A 2136.16 132/- 31.03.1997

3. 7323/2006 188 1858.06 60/- 11.09.1987

4. 7399/2006 164B 991 120/- 05.09.1996

5. 9454/2006 166 2013.60 23.03.1987

6. 9478/2006 161 2053.16 120/- 10.09.1997

7. 9707/2006 167/B 991.00 100/- 11.01.1990

8. 9708/2006 179/A/B 1263.48 78/- 10.05.1989

9. 9709/2006 187/A 845.42 120/- 11.09.1996

10. 9710/2006 1801/B 1026.58 75/- 22.03.1989

11. 10359/2006 172/B 1184.51 60/- 20.11.1987

12. 5732/2007 181/B 1026.58 75/- 16.07.1988

13. 7322/2006 189/190B 4830.96 60/- 11.09.1987

14. 5938/2007 173A 2136.16 132/