Involving the same issue, these writ petitions are amenable to a conjoined disposal. Hence, this common order.

The petitioners in this batch of cases were allotted plots of land by the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC) in the industrial parks/zones developed by it. On payment of the sale consideration, registered agreements of sale were entered into by the APIIC with the petitioners individually. As the petitioners failed to implement the projects within the stipulated time frame, the APIIC cancelled the allotment orders/agreements of sale by separate proceedings passed in each of the cases. In some of them, the APIIC also issued resumption proceedings to recover possession of the allotted plots. The cancellation of the allotment orders/agreements of sale was assailed in most of the cases. However, in W.P.Nos.6563, 6568, 6593, 6618 and 6634 of 2013, only the resumption proceedings were challenged and not the cancellation of the allotment, which therefore attained finality. In W.P.No.1692 of 2013, the petitioner challenged both the cancellation and the resumption proceedings.

This Court directed status-quo to be maintained in all the cases, except in W.P.Nos.35326 of 2012, 4254 and 4279 of 2013. The APIIC filed counter-affidavits along with petitions to vacate the status-quo orders wherever passed. No counters were however filed by the APIIC in W.P.Nos.25524, 35326 of 2012 and 1623 of 2013. It is the case of the APIIC that as the petitioners failed to adhere to the time stipulation with regard to project implementation; it was justified in cancelling the allotment.

1. The issue raised is no longer res integra. Validity of the cancellation of allotment of a plot on the ground of non-implementation of the project and the consequential nullification of the allotment order/agreement of sale by the APIIC fell for consideration before this Court in ECI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. V/s. ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED (2013 (1) ALT 634 = 2013 (2) ALD 466). Upon a detailed consideration of all the issues, a learned Judge of this Court held that the action of the APIIC in canceling the allotment of land was perfectly in order and could not be interfered with. The question as to whether an allottee was entitled to any refund of the sale consideration and if so, to what extent, was left open to be considered by the APIIC in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. This Court finds no reason to take a different view in the matter. However, as some of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this batch of cases argued that certain aspects were not considered in ECI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. (supra) this Court deems it proper to deal with the same.

It is not in dispute that the registered agreements of sale entered into by the APIIC with each of the petitioners in these cases are in pari materia with the agreement of sale which was considered in ECI ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.(supra) In so far as the time stipulation for implementation of the project by the allottee is concerned, the clause in the agreement of sale, which is in a prescribed format, reads as under:

“… THE PARTY TO THE SECOND PART shall within six months of being put in possession of the said plot/land commence construction of factory buildings after securing necessary clearances from the competent authorities like building plan approvals, filing application with APTRANSCO, other permissions/clearances etc. The party of the Second Part shall go into commercial production duly erecting machinery and obtaining regular power supply connection within two years of being put in possession of the allotted plot/land.

Any extension of time, if considered, will be subject to levying of penalty at 10% or as fixed by the Corporation from time to time on the land cost at the prevailing rates. No extension of more than 2 Years can be entertained.