M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.2004 of the learned IX Additional District Judge (Judge, Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam in A.S. No. 137 of 2000. The learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the said Appeal had confirmed the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2000 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam in O.S. No. 936 of 1996. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, this Court having regard to the grounds (a) to (c) mentioned in the grounds of objection had formulated the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the respondent herein can cancel the Ex. A-6 allotment letter dated earlier than that of Ex. A-4 sale deed without seeking cancellation of Ex. A-4 sale deed in a civil court?

(2) Whether the judgment of the courts below is perverse in holding that Ex. A-4 sale deed can be cancelled by the respondent herein by an executive order without seeking cancellation of the same from a competent civil court?

(3) Whether imposition of condition in a sale deed is contrary to the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the Contract Act? [Reproduced verbatim]"

2. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have perused the material record.

3. To adjudicate the lis and answer the substantial questions of law, it is necessary to first refer to, in brief, the respective cases pleaded by the parties.

4. (a) The case of the plaintiff may be stated, in brief, is as follows: "The plaintiff had applied on 25.03.1981 to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority ('the VUDA', for brevity) for allotment of a house site. On accepting the request of the plaintiff, an allotment letter dated 16.10.1984 was issued allotting the site in an extent of 325 square yards in MIG 290 of Madhavadhara layout covered by Survey No. 14 within Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits, which is more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. Thereafter, the plaintiff had paid the entire consideration to the VUDA. On that, the VUDA had submitted on 20.11.1987, the duly executed sale deed before the Sub Registrar concerned for registration. However, the registration of the said document was kept pending for want of fixation of stamp duty charges payable on the transaction by the Government. The sale deed, the registration of which was kept pending, was finally registered on 27.04.1996 on receipt of the stamp duty payable on the said sale deed. After such registration, the sale deed was released to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had thus purchased the schedule site from the VUDA. The plaintiff, who was employed and was residing in Madhya Pradesh, has no site in Visakhapatnam or anywhere else and had intended to construct a house and settle down at Visakhapatnam and never had an intention to sell away the assigned plot to make profit. As the plaintiff had no financial sources, he did not construct a building either by borrowing a loan from his employer or other financial institutions. While so, the plaintiff had received a letter dated nil. 10.1994 cancelling the allotment and forfeiting the registration fee and 50% of the amount paid towards the land cost. No notice was given prior to the issuance of such letter of cancellation and no opportunity of hearing was also given to explain as to why the plaintiff could not construct a building in the allotted site. Therefore, the plaintiff had made a number of representations to withdraw the letter/order of cancellation and the same are of no avail. The plaintiff had also received a cheque for 1 14,439.50ps dated 15.03.1996 along with the covering letter dated 21.03.1996 informing that the plot sold to the plaintiff was allotted in a public auction to a third party and that the cheque was being sent towards the amount refundable to the plaintiff