IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ALOK ARADHE, C.J., J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep., by its Vice Chairman, Hyderabad and another - Appellants
Versus
S.V. Castle Creators & Engineers Private Limited – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 1105 of 2016
Decided on : 11-09-2024
(A) Auction-cum-Sale Notification – Terms and Conditions – Provisional Allotment Letter – Cancellation of Allotment – The petitioner was the highest bidder for a plot but failed to pay the balance amount within the stipulated time despite repeated notices. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on grounds of extended payment timelines and non-essence of time in the contract. (Paras 4.1, 4.6, 13)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner unilaterally deposited the amount without consent, and the cancellation of allotment was justified as per the auction terms. (Paras 12, 19)
(C) Public Interest – The court emphasized the importance of public interest in property auctions and the escalation of property values over time. (Paras 16, 20)
Facts of the case: The petitioner was awarded a plot in an auction but failed to pay the full amount on time, leading to cancellation of the allotment by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority.
Findings of Court: The court found that the petitioner did not comply with payment terms and that the cancellation was justified.
Issues: The main issues were whether the cancellation of allotment was justified and if the principles of natural justice were violated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's unilateral actions did not entitle them to relief, and the cancellation was lawful under the auction terms.
Result: The writ appeal was allowed, setting aside the learned Single Judge's order.
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J. Sreenivas Rao)
This intra-court Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in allowing Writ Petition No.14316 of 2008, dated 30.09.2015, setting aside the proceedings No.5640/EMC/HUDA/96, dated 02.03.2008, issued by appellant No.1 cancelling the allotment made in favour of the respondent vide proceedings dated 28.08.1996.
2. Heard Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants and Sri C.Raghu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as petitioner and respondents, as they are arrayed in the writ petition.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. Respondent No.2-Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad, had issued auction of sale notification from respective bidders proposing to conduct public auction-cum-sale in respect of 22 commercial plots and 6 residential plots situated at Ramachandrapuram and Sarrornagar by mentioning the terms and conditions and conducted auction on 5th and 6th August, 1996. In the said auction, the petitioner-Company (hereinafter called, ‘the petitioner’) was declared as the highest bidder for plot No.5 admeasuring 1320 square meters equivalent to 1578.72 square yards, @ Rs.510/- per square meter, situated at HUDA Trade Center, Ramchandrapuram, with a total sale price of Rs.6,73,200/-. That the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,18,300/- towards initial deposit apart from EMD amount of Rs.50,000/- on 05.08.1996. Accordingly, respondent No.2 issued letter of provisional allotment to the petitioner on 28.08.1996 intimating to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,04,900/- without any interest within one month i.e. 27.09.1996, or with interest 20% per annum on or before 06.11.1996 and also mentioned that non-payment of the amount within the date will entail cancellation without any intimation as per the terms and conditions.
4.2 Thereafter, on 08.12.1996, respondent No.2 issued notice informing the petitioner to make the payment on or before 31.12.1996, failing which allotment will be cancelled without any notice. Again respondent No.2 issued another notice on 01.01.1997 asking the petitioner to make the payment on or before 10.01.1997, failing which respondent No.2 will cancel the allotment, as per the terms and conditions of allotment without any notice. On 10.01.1997, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,64,900/-, out of Rs.5,04,900/-, with 20% interest to be paid.
4.3. Thereafter, on 16.09.1997 respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner to pay the balance amount, wherein it is further stated that the said notice may be treated as show-cause notice and if the amount not paid on or before 30.09.1997, the allotment will be automatically get cancelled, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. The petitioner paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 07.10.1997 and Rs.1,40,000/- on 07.11.1997.
4.4 Respondent No.2 sent another notice on 25.02.1999 to the petitioner intimating that if the total amount is not paid on or before 15.03.1999, allotment shall be cancelled without any notice. Subsequently, on 15.07.2003 respondent No.2 issued another notice to the petitioner intimating that if the due amount is not paid on or before 31.07.2003, the allotment shall stands terminated without any notice. Subsequently, on 26.08.2003 respondent No.2 issued another notice to the petitioner directing to pay an amount of Rs.3,19,936/- along with interest on or before 15.09.2003 or else allotment will be cancelled without any notice, as per Clause 11 of the terms of allotment. Once again on 16.10.2003, respondent No.2 issued notice to the petitioner directing to pay an amount of Rs.3,37,027/- with interest on or before 31.10.2003 and rejected the request made by the petitioner
The cancellation of allotment was justified due to the petitioner's failure to comply with payment terms, emphasizing the importance of adhering to auction conditions and public interest.
Non-compliance with payment schedules in allotment agreements leads to automatic cancellation of rights to the property.
The court emphasized that failure to comply with payment directives, as mandated by public notice, results in cancellation of allotment, and timely action to enforce rights is critically important.
The principle of unjust enrichment and the doctrine of legitimate expectations were central to the court's decision, emphasizing the obligation of the Development Authority to act fairly and reasonab....
Writ petitions can be maintained against administrative actions affecting contracts, especially when principles of natural justice and public policy are at stake.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.