Point of Law: Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if any sale deed is required to be cancelled, the only remedy is by way of a civil suit for cancellation, but no cancellation deed can be unilaterally executed or registered.

ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSIIC, for respondent No.1, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, and Sri Chatla Madhu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) to issue a writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing to set aside the Show Cause Notice Lr.No.ZO/MDCL-SDPT/133/Ph.11/96/4241, dated 22.09.2020;

(b) to direct respondent No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.1 crore for the loss caused due to stoppage of work, for demolition of parts of the building and causing reputational loss; and

(c) to pass such other order (s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts that necessary for the purpose of this case are that respondent No.3 herein was allotted land admeasuring 4151 Sq. Yards in Industrial Development Area, Jeedimetla, for the purpose of establishing Industrial Training Institute and a sale deed dated 18.09.1998 was also executed in favour of respondent No.3. As the said area was declared as a residential zone, respondent No.3 could not establish the Training Institute and therefore respondent No.3 got converted the land for residential purpose. After paying necessary conversion charges, development charges and after complying all the required formalities by respondent No.3, respondent No.1 issued no-objection to respondent No.3 for usage of the subject land for group housing purpose. Thereafter, respondent No.3 entered into development agreement with Gowtham Sai Infrastructures, which in turn has entered into an agreement with petitioners for construction of residential complex in pursuance of building permit, dated 08.01.2020, issued by respondent No.4 and accordingly the petitioners have commenced construction. It is the grievance of the petitioners that after the commencement they came to know about issuance of the impugned notice dated 22.09.2020 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 stating that the subject land allotted to respondent No.3 was cancelled and the land was resumed with immediate effect, on the ground that the subject land was not used for the purpose for which it was allotted. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited vs. S.N. Raj Kumar, (2018) 6 SCC 410.

4. A counter has been filed by respondent No.1 mainly contending that the writ petitioners herein are not parties to the allotment proceedings between respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 and therefore they have no locus to file the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned cancellation and resumption order. It is further contended that as the allotted land was not utilized for the purpose for which the same was allotted, the impugned orders are passed. Further, the authorities have no knowledge about the agreements took place between the petitioners and the allottees. Respondent No.1 after coming to know the construction activity, has addressed a letter dated 08.07.2021 to the respondent No.4 to withdraw the permissions by bringing to its notice the impugned cancellation proceedings. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has relied on Indu Kakkar vs. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 37 to contend that the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable.

6. Heard and perused the material on record.

7. The main issue before this Court is as to ‘whether the Corporation has the power to cancel a registered sale deed unilaterally on its own on the basis of the purported letter, which is impugned in the present writ petition?’.

8. Admittedly, in this case, the Corporation has executed a re