2014 Supreme(AP) 1350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.
Sri Venkateswara Warehousing Private Limited - Appellants
Vs.
A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19086 of 2014
Decided On: 02.12.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: D. Prakash Reddy, Senior Counsel for Pavan Kumar
For Respondents/Defendant: P. Roy Reddy, Standing Counsel
Headnote:
APIIC Allotment Regulations, 1998 - Possession and company - Peaceful possession of the subject land - Environment and Forests - Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited laws - Petition is filed for declaring action of respondent in cancelling allotment of land admeasuring guntas in Industrial Park made in favor of petitioner by letter bearing Letter as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside same and deliver vacant encumbered possession of above land to petitioner - Case of petitioner is that petitioner is a company engaged in business of providing container loading and ware housing facilities and setting up of thermal power plant and petitioner company in desiring of setting up a container loading and warehousing facility and building and operation - Respondent Corporation by making an application for allotment of plot to utilize same for setting up project and application was considered by respondent and vide allotment order - Petitioner stating that the additional line of activity of container loading and warehousing facilities will be considered and approved and that by way of provisional allotment letter – Held, This Court in similar in ECI Engineering and Construction Co Limited represented by its Director A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited represented by its Deputy Zonal Manager and others Auto Service represented by its Proprietor and others A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited represented by its Zonal Manager Kakinada and others upheld cancellation of allotment by respondent while invoking similar clause in agreement in present case are almost similar in nature as that in above judgments - Petitioner company was not being put in possession of subject land by respondent corporation but same is disputed by respondent corporation relying on a possession certificate - writ petition dismissed (Para 9)
A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the respondent in cancelling the allotment of land admeasuring Ac. 208.07 guntas in Industrial Park, Ballavolu village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District made in favour of the petitioner by letter dated 22-09-2012 bearing Letter No. ZO/NLR/IP Ballavolu/ Sri Venkateswara/09/1021 as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to set aside the same and deliver vacant encumbered possession of the above land to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a company engaged in the business of providing container loading and ware housing facilities and setting up of thermal power plant and the petitioner company, in desiring of setting up a container loading and warehousing facility and building and operation a 330 MW coal-based thermal power plant (Project) at Ballavolu village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, approached the respondent Corporation by making an application dated 19-06-2010 for allotment of plot to utilize the same for setting up the project and the application was considered by the respondent and vide allotment order dated 20-01-2011 through letter No. 4792/APHC/AMW/ SVWHPL/Ballavolu/10, the land admeasuring Ac. 208.07 guntas in Industrial park at Ballavolu village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District was allotted to the petitioner for original line of activity of container loading warehousing facilities on outright sale basis. The respondent through letter dated 19-01-2011 had informed the petitioner stating that the additional line of activity of container loading and warehousing facilities will be considered and approved and that by way of provisional allotment letter dated 27-01-2011 and final allotment letter dated 28-01-2011, the subject land was allotted to the petitioner on outright sale basis for establishment of subject plant for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,54,68,400/- and an agreement of sale dated 28-01-2011 for the purchase of the subject land was entered into between the respondent and the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner also made payment of entire sale consideration to the respondent for purchase of subject land as a condition precedent for being put in possession of the subject land. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the petitioner shall be (sic. have) to be put in vacant possession of the subject land so as to commence the construction activity for the project, but, the petitioner was never put in vacant possession of the subject land and ever since from January, 2011 the subject land suffered conditions such as floods and severe agitation by farmers on the subject land in connection with their claims of increased compensation and the petitioner was never put in vacant and peaceful possession of the subject land as on date. It is further stated that during the time from the execution of the agreement, the petitioner has been making endeavours to get necessary clearances from all concerned like Ministry of Environment and Forests, Airport authorities, Indonesian Coal Mines and other departments. It is further stated that basing on the allotment of subject land as well as Agreement of Sale, the petitioner company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on 12-12-2011 with M/s. Kyori Oremin Limited for supply of coal to the petitioner for the project and the petitioner also entered into Power Purchase Agreement dated 06-03-2012 with Tata Power Trading Company Limited (Tata Power) to sell 300MW of power generated from the Project to Tata Power (Power Purchase Agreement) and the petitioner had spent huge amounts of money in purchasing equipment required for the project, in making applications and procuring permits etc, but due to not being put in vacant and peaceful possession of the land, the petitioner could not procure required permissions to commence construction activity. It is further stated that during the years 2012 and 2013, seve