The main legal point established is the court's authority to direct specific performance of a contract for the execution of a Sale Deed when one party has performed the terms and conditions of the agreement.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner to declare the inaction of the respondent No.2 in not executing the registered Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the letter dated 03.06.2009 as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and without any basis and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to execute registered Sale Deed to an extent of Ac.28-01 Gts in Survey No.848, 849, 876 and 877 of Narsapur Village, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that 2nd respondent was having more than Ac.12000 at Nizamabad District in various villages surrounding the Nizam Sugar Factory situated at Shakkar Nagar, Bodhan Town. After selling the factory to the private individual, the Government decided to sell the agricultural lands on public sale under the supervision of the District Collector. Large extent of land was sold to various individuals and some extent was also given to the employees who opted for voluntary retirement at the stage of closure of the factory. The second respondent issued a tender cum auction notice on 30.12.2002 for sale of farm lands and published in newspaper. Basing on such notice, the petitioner along with his family members participated and submitted the tender for Ac.28-01 guntas situated at Narsapur Village, Bodhan Mandal. Nizamabad District. The petitioner became highest bidder for the land and he paid EMD at the time of tender. After becoming highest bidder, he visited the land and found that some people occupied the same and immediately he informed about the encroachment to the second respondent. The matter was kept pending. The petitioner made several representations. In the meantime, the second respondent evicted the encroachers by giving substitute land in other areas. After that the second respondent issued a registered notice on 23.04.2009 directing the petitioner to deposit the balance sale consideration along with interest @ 18% per annum. Basing on the said notice, the petitioner approached the second respondent and requested to delete the interest vide letter dated 18.05.2009. After that the second respondent issued a detailed registered notice on 20.05.2009 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.24,55,375/- towards balance sale consideration and Rs.26,64,392/- towards interest on principal amount. As per the directions of the second respondent, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.51,19,767/- including balance sale consideration with interest fixed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent received the entire amount and issued a letter dated 03-06-2009 confirming the sale and handed over the possession to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to take necessary action for registration of the Sale Deed. After 03.06.2009, the sub-ordinates of the second respondent directed the petitioner to clear the bushes. As such the petitioner engaged labour and machinery and started clearing the bushes for cultivation and development of the land. The petitioner handed over the draft Sale Deed. In the meanwhile, due to political pressure, the 2nd respondent delayed the registration. To his surprise, the petitioner received a letter on 19.06.2009 from the 2nd respondent stating that it would take certain time to take administrative and legal clearances before proceeding to register sale deed. The second respondent lodged a police complaint at Bodhan against the petitioner stating that the petitioner was encroaching the lands. The police came to the petitioner and informed him to stop the work. The petitioner approached 2nd respondent on 22.06.2009 and requested him to execute Sale Deed, but the second respondent informed the petitioner that it would take some more time for getting clearance. Apprehending that something was going against him, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the writ petition was not