No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
+ WRIT PETITION No.2066 of 2021
% 31.10.2023
Between:
# Larsen & Toubro and Vision
Ventures Limited A company
incorporated under Companies Act,
1956, Having its registered office at
Post Box No. 979 Mount Poon amalies
Road, Manapakkam, Chennai, Tamil
Nadu – 600089, Represented by its
Director, Sri B. Lakshmi Prabhakar,
S/o. Sri Nageswara Rao, Flat No. B-24,
Stonevally, Road No.4, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner
Versus
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by
its Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration & Urban Development
Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi
and another.
….Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati
^ Counsel for the respondent : Addl. Advocate General
SC for VMRDA
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
+ WRIT PETITION No.2066 of 2021
Between:
# Larsen & Toubro and Vision Ventures
Limited A company inco rporated under
Companies Act, 1956, Having its
registered office at Post Box No. 979
Mount Poonamalies Road, Manapakkam,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600089,
Represented by its Director, Sri B.
Lakshmi Prabhakar, S/o. Sri Nageswara
Rao, Flat No. B-24, Stonevally, Road No.4,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner
Versus
$ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration & Urban Development
Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi and
another.
….Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 31.10.2023.
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Order? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
Copy of the Order? Yes/No
_______________________________
JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION No.2066 of 2021
Larsen & Toubro and Vision Ventures
Limited A company incorporated under
Companies Act, 1956, Having its
registered office at Post Box No. 979
Mount Poonamalies Road,
Manapakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu –
600089, Represented by its Director,
Sri B. Lakshmi Prabhakar, S/o. Sri
Nageswara Rao, Flat No. B -24,
Stonevally, Road No.4, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad.
…. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by
its Principal Secretary, Municipal
Administration & Urban Development
Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi
and another.
….Respondents
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel for the 2
nd
respondent and the learned
Government Pleader for the 1
st
respondent.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the G.O.Ms.No.4,
Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department
dated 22.01.2021 issued by the 1
st
respondent permitting the 2
nd
respondent to cancel the land allotment in an extent of Ac. 31.30
cents (an extent of Ac.22.71 cents in Sy.No.7, 165/P & 166 and an
extent of Ac. 8.59 cents in Sy.No. 67/P of Kommadi Village,
4
Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal & Visakhapatnam District) in
Kommadi Village in favour of the petitioner-company and the
consequential order in Rc.No.9464/2005/L&T/F1 dated
22.01.2021 passed by the 2
nd
respondent.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits tha t the
petitioner-company is a Special Purpose Vehicle incorporated on
22.12.2006 by Larsen and Toubro Limited and Vision Ventures
limited exclusively for implementation of the project i.e,
developing, financing, constructing and marketing residential
township in Visakhapatnam District as per the terms and
conditions stipulated by erstwhile Visakhapatnam Urban
Development Authority (VUDA) now the respondent No.2 vide its
Letter of Award (LOA) R.C.No.9464/05/P.M.U dated 28.11.2006.
The 2
nd
respondent was assigned an extent of Ac. 55.15 cents in
Sy.No.1 of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam
District under RC.No.411/2000/Special R.I dated 30.09.2000 for
the purpose of comprehensive development by the respondent
No.1 and accordingly, the respondent No.2 for the purpose of
developing the said land with Housing Project on Public Private
Partnership (PPP) Mode issued a notification on 11.12.2005 calling
for Expression of Interest (EOI) from the prospective and reputed
developers registered in the Country or Multi National Companies
having Member Consortium with Indian Companies to design and
to build, finance and market independent dwelling
5
units/bungalows. In pursuance of the notification issued by the
2
nd
respondent, the petitioner company submitted and
participated in the competitive bidding process and was declared
as the highest final bidder and accordingly passed the evaluation
of technical business and commercial proposals as consortium
between M/s Larsen & Toubro, Chennai and Vision Ventures
Private Limited for the development of housing project at
Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam on the land in an extent of Ac. 55.15
cents in Sy.No.1 on the joint venture basis under PPP mode. The
Letter of Award (LOA) R.C.No. 9464/05/P.M.U dated 28.11.2006
was also issued to the consortium lead by Larsen & Toubro
limited. In terms of the conditions in the LOA dated 28.11.2006,
the petitioner-company was incorporated as Special Purpose
Vehicle/Joint Venture to complete the development project. Thus,
the petitioner-company was specifically incorporated for the
purpose of implementing the project contemplated by the
respondent No.2. The petitioner-company inter-alia established
regional offices, created office infrastructure, hired qualified
engineering and senior staff, marketing and advertising agents to
complete the project within a period of 30 months as stipulated in
the LOA dated 28.11.2006. In pursuance of the said LOA dated
28.11.2006, the development agreement dated 31.03.2007 was
executed incorporating the terms and conditions for development
of the project. The power of attorney was also executed on the
6
same date i.e, 31.03.2007 by and between the 2
nd
respondent and
the petitioner-company. The development agreement dated
31.03.2007 sets out the rights and obligatio ns of both the
petitioner-company (as developer) and the respondent No.2. The
respondent No.2 was to hand over the project site i.e., vacant land
of Ac.55.15 cents in Sy.No.1 of Vepagunta Village, Pendurthi
Mandal, Visakhapatnam District to the Developer as is where is
basis, for the petitioner to develop and the petitioner –company
was to pay 10% of Minimum Guaranteed Amount of Rs.
6,24,00,000/- which was later adjusted as advance against the
total sale consideration. The petitioner-company also paid an
amount of Rs. 43,12,000/- toward Project Development Expenses
incurred by the Respondent No.2 on land management, payment
to consultants, etc. in order to bring the project to bidding stage.
The project concept is set-out in Article 1.2 of the Development
Agreement dated 31.03.2007. As per Article 1.2, the project
concept as conceived by erstwhile VUDA included independent
2,3,4 and 4- Bedroom dwelling units/Bungalows with a mix of
Low rise and High Rise Group Housing with world class amenities
including Shopping Malls, IT Campus, School, Hospitals, Star
Rated Hotel Club House, Health Spa & Swimming Pool,
Community Center etc. to be designed, developed, financed,
constructed, marketed, operated and maintained by the Developer.
The Obligations of the petitioner-company (Developer) are set out
7
in Article 3 of the Development Agreement dated 31.03.2007 and
in simple terms, the petitioner-company was to develop/construct
residential township with all infrastructure facilities in the project
site allotted by the respondent No.2.
4. The petitioner company pursuant to the execution of the
development agreement has appointed world class consultants like
Surbana International Consultants India Private Limited and
others for the conceptualization of Residential township. The
Regional offices in Visakhapatnam was also set out pursuant to
the Development Agreement. Engineering and other staff members
were hired for the execution of the Project in a timely manner. The
petitioner company also appointed consultants for Geolo gical
Investigations, soil exploration, contour survey and hired,
deployed on site execution team and started work at project site.
The petitioner company had also appointed a full-fledged team for
marketing and advertisement, as it was one of the obligations of
the petitioner company under the development agreement.
5. In pursuance of the said development agreement, the
petitioner proposed soil testing on the project site at Vepagunta
Village, Visakhapatnam and accordingly the personnel of the 2
nd
respondent along with the petitioner approached the site for
formation of roads and also for the survey process to hand over
the said land in pursuance of the Development Agreement. When
the team of officials from the petitioner company visited the project
8
site for physical inspection, much to the surprise and shock of the
petitioner company, it came to light that the project land offered at
Vepagunta Village, Visakhapatnam by the 2
nd
respondent was a
notified forest land and included in the Reserve Forest Block. The
respondent No.2 was not the owner of the project site offered.
Having parted with the amount and having appointed Architects,
drawings and survey, by incurring huge costs, the petitioner
company was surprised to know that the land offered by the
respondents was not in their possession and it is a disputed land.
6. In view of the disputed ownership of the project site at
Vepagunta Village and deliberations with the respondent No.2, the
respondent No.1 has issued G.O.Ms.No.729 dated 24.10.2008 for
allotment of alternate land. Under G.O.Ms.No. 729 dated
24.10.2008, the respondent No.1 permitted the respondent No. 2
to allot alternative land in an extent of Ac.49.33 cents in Kommadi
Village, Visakhapatnam (Ac.33.38 cents in Sy.No.7, Ac.8.84 cents
in Sy.No.67/P and Ac.7.11 cents in Sy.No.164/P of Kommadi
Village) at the rate of Rs.1,53,00,000/- per acre on outright sale
basis in favour of the petitioner in lieu of the project land in
Sy.No.1 of Vepagunta Village for construction of Housing units
with other conditions as stipulated in the Development Agreement.
The rate fixed by the 1
st
respondent at Rs.1.53 crores per acre for
outright sale of land was way above the market rate prevailing at
that point in time and was atleast 2 and half times higher than the
9
market rate. However, the petitioner approached the respondent
No.2 requesting hand over of the physical possession of the
subject land. During the process, the petitioner company found
that this alternative land parcel was also deficient in extent and
there was no approach road for entering the land. There was no
basic infrastructure i.e., an access road for approaching the
subject land. The petitioner company incurred huge expenditure
for preliminary investigations. The respondent did not provide
necessary documents and deliver the possession of the subject
land and as the project was not materialising, the petitioner was
constrained to issue a legal notice dated 25.02.2009, seeking
refund assessing the loss of Rs.176.00 crores and on 07.10.2009 a
legal notice was issued under section 80 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 requesting to pay Rs.194,48,00,000/- together
with interest of 18% from 13.03.2009 apart from the amount so
deposited by virtue of the Development Agreement dated
31.03.2007 entered by the petitioner. The Joint survey was
conducted even in respect of the land allotted under
G.O.Ms.No.729 dated 24.10.2008 wherein also there is
discrepancy with regard to the similar problem of the claim of the
Forest Department and therefore the land on ground is available
only Ac.37.52 cents out of Ac.49.33 cents and out of even
Ac.37.52 cents, an extent of Ac.31.30 cents was available and for
the balance Ac.6.22 cents there is a claim of the Forest
10
Department even in the land in Sy.No.164/P of Kommadi Village.
The availability of the land was tabulated in the respondent No.2’s
letter R.c.No.9464/2005/PMU dated 03.07.2014. But the 2
nd
respondent kept assuring the petitioner company to withdraw the
legal notices and that suitable land would be allotted after the
joint survey.
7. There were numerous correspondence between the
respondents and the petitioner between 2009 to 2013 including
the Legal notices dated 03.10.2012 and 27.11.2012 issued by the
petitioner. Vexed with the attitude of the respondents, the
petitioner was constrained to approach the Hon’ble High Court for
appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes in A.A.No.13
of 2013 and accordingly, the learned Arbitrator was appointed by
order dated 12.07.2013 to resolve the dispute in between the
petitioner and the respondents in terms of development agreement
dated 31.03.2007. Even after the appointment of the Hon’ble
Arbitrator, the respondent No.2 assured that land would be
allotted to the petitioner and requested not to initiate any legal
proceedings. In the letter dated 21.08.2013, the 2
nd
respondent
stated that the land offered to be allotted to the petitioner in
Sy.No.7 of Kommadi Village overlaps with another survey number
i.e, Sy.no.1 of Paradesipalem Village and on request of the
respondent No.2 a survey was undertaken in October 2012 by the
concerned revenue officials. It was also stated that Ac.9.73 guntas
11
of land was encroached by Forest Department. It was further
stated that the 2
nd
respondent would require a minimum of 5
months to conduct a survey. The 2
nd
respondent issued a letter in
R.c.No.9464/2008/PMU dated 03.07.2014 detailing the issues
involved with handing over of the project land. It was mentioned
that Ac.49.33 cents of land originally allotted, the respondent No.2
can hand over nearly Ac.37.52 cents out of which Ac.31.30 cents
is readily available to be handed over to the petitioner since an
extent of Ac.0.25 cents in Sy.No.67/P of Kommadi and Ac.6.22
cents in Sy.No.164/p of Kommadi are under encroachment of the
Forest Department and the same will be handed over to the
petitioner after boundary dispute is resolved. The Planning and
Engineering wings of VUDA was already in the job of providing
approach to the bits of land handed over through the Master Plan
Roads to be laid by VUDA. The respondent No. 2 requested for
payment of Rs.41,64,90,000/- towards cost of Ac.31.30 cents
unencumbered land and it was further agreed that the
consideration for the balance extent of Ac.6.22 cents
Rs.9,51,66,000/- will be paid after resolving the dispute. All
along, the respondent no. 2 had made withdrawal of all claims
including the claim before the Arbitrator, a condition precedent for
execution of sale deed in pursuance of the allotment of land as
also the Development Agreement dated 31.03.2007.
12
8. The respondent No.2 also sought a legal opinion from its
counsel, who vide legal opinion dated 09.08.2014 had opined that
the subject land i.e., Ac.31.20 cents in Sy.No.7 and Sy.No.67/P of
Kommadi Village can be registered in favour of the petiti oner
subject to an unconditional undertaking by the petitioner that it
shall not make any claims against the 2
nd
respondent and to
withdraw or terminate the proceedings of the arbitration under
section 32(2)(a) as claimant withdrawing its claim. Between
September 2014 and September 2016, the respondent No. 2 was
communicating with the AP Housing Board Corporation and the
Respondent No.1 for providing access road to the subject land in
Kommadi Village and for necessary sanctions. The respondent No.
2 accorded permission for safeguarding the land with barbed
fencing in 2016. While so, certain locals obstructed the
construction of 60 feet wide Master plan approach road to the
subject lands. The 2
nd
respondent issued notice vide
Rc.No.LT/85/2014/L5/ dated 14.09. 2016 to one Mr.
Chandramouli and others on 14.09.2016 stating that the land was
already notified as Master plan road. The respondent No.2 vide
letter in R.C.No. 9464/2005 dated 20.09.2016 sent draft sale deed
for an extent of Ac.8.59 cents in Sy.No.67/P of Kommadi Village,
Visakhapatnam District and a Memorandum of Understanding for
execution of the sale deed for Ac.22.71 cents in Sy.No.7 after
providing the approach road and execution of the sale deed
13
subject to availability of lands in respect of balance land agreed to
be transferred in favour of the petitioner.
9. The 2
nd
respondent issued another letter in
R.C.No.9454/05/PMU dated 23.01.2017 stating that there is an
overlapping of allotted lands between one Deccan infrastructure
Limited, Hyderabad and L & T Vision Ventures Limited and that
land in Sy.No.7 of Kommadi Village allotted to the petitioner has
approach road which must be carved out of the lands owned by AP
Housing Board and the land allotted to Deccan Infrastructure
Limited. The respondent No. 2 also stated that about 1600 sq.
yards of VUDA land in the same site will be handed over in
exchange to Deccan Infrastructure Limited and sought the matters
to be taken up with Housing Commissioner of AP Housing Board
to hand over land to VUDA for layin g approach road in 1600
sq.yards of APHB in Sy.No.165 of Kommadi Village,
Visakhapatnam.
10. The Board Meeting (No.533) was also conducted on
06.02.2017 by the respondent No.2 to seek exchange of land with
Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner of AP Hous ing Board.
This exchange of land was permitted by the Respondent No.1 vide
its letter No. 26754/H2/2012 dated 08.05.2017 and a joint survey
for refixing of the boundaries was conducted on 09.06.2017.
Pursuant to the exchange of lands, the respondent No.2 a gain
addressed a letter Rc.No.9464/05/PMU dated 07.09.2017 to the
14
respondent No.1 stating that the petitioner is ready to pay the
balance sale consideration of Rs.41,61,90,000/ - and sought
permission to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner.
Another letter in Rc.No.9464/05/PMU dated 11.12.2017 was also
addressed by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1,
expressly stating that the delay is not on the part of the developer
i.e., the petitioner herein and requested for permission to execute
sale deeds for a total extent of Ac.31.30 cents in favour of the
petitioner. The petitioner was always willing to pay the balance
sale consideration to the respondent No.2, however it was due to
the lack of approach road, discrepancies, unavailability of land on
ground and the administrative delays on the part of the
respondents which lead to the petitioner not being able to get the
sale deed executed in its favour. The petitioner was ready to get
executed the sale deed and prepared to pay the total amount of
Rs.41,61,90,000/- as demanded by the respondent No.2. As
stated above, the land covered by the draft sale deed does not have
the approach road for the land in Sy.No.67/P and the Sy.No.7 of
Kommadi Village and there was a hindrance created by the
neighbourhood land owners to approach the land in Sy.No.67/P
and there was also exchange of land in between the 2
nd
respondent and AP Housing Board in respect of Sy.No.7 of
Kommadi Village and on submitting and resolving the said issues,
the petitioner expressed its intention to withdraw the arbitration
15
proceedings and also to pay the balance amount and to get the
sale deed registered in its favour. The petitioner never committed
any default at any point of time and was misrepresented and
misguided by the respondent authorities. In fact, the petitioner so
far apart from the payment of amounts towards sale
consideration, incurred huge expenditure for preliminary
enquiries, investigations, consultations, travelling, having
engineers employed and other incidental miscellaneous expenses.
As the respondent No.2 failed to execute the registered sale deed
with respect to the aforesaid land even after the petitioner was
constrained to file the writ petition No. 10686 of 2018 before the
erstwhile Common High Court, Hyderabad which after bifurcation
of the composite state of Andhra Pradesh is pending for
adjudication before this Hon’ble court. The 2
nd
respondent filed
counter affidavit in the said writ petition admitted all the
contentions raised by the petitioner. However, unless t he 1
st
respondent accords sanction and permission, the respondent No.
2 is not in a position to convey land in favour of the petitioner
company.
11. While the W.P.No.10686 of 2018 was pending adjudication,
the 2
nd
respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 07.0 3.2019
permitting the respondent to execute the sale deed for land to an
extent of Ac.31.30 cents i.e., an extent of Ac.22.71 cents in
Sy.No.7, 165/P and 166 and an extent of Ac.8.59 cents in
16
Sy.No.67/P of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal
and Visakhapatnam District in favour of the petitioner Company
on payment of balance of Rs. 41.64 crore with 7% simple interest
p.a., from 24.10.2008 subject to withdrawal of all legal
proceedings. This proceeding is issued without creating the
infrastructure up to the subject land i.e., without laying any
approach road. Pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.108 dated
07.03.2019, the 2
nd
respondent issued letter in
Rc.No.9464/05/PMU dated 02.05.2019 attaching the draft sale
deed for sale of Ac.31.30 cents of land in Kommadi Village in
Visakhapatnam. The G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 07.03.2019 permitting
the 2
nd
respondent to execute sale deed for the land to an extent of
Ac.31.30 cents in favour of the petitioner on payment of balance of
Rs. 41.64 crores with 7% simple interest p.a., from 24.10.2008
would substantially increase the value of the land. At 7% interest
on Rs.41.64 crore calculated from October 2008 to January 2021
would make the value of 1 acre of land sought to be sold in
Kommadi Village, is Rs. 2.86 crore instead of Rs.1.53 crore which
was agreed in the year 2008. The Government Valuation of 1 acre
of land in Sy.No.7 of Kommadi Village as on the date of issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 07.03.2019 is Rs.1.98 crore. The current
government valuation of 1 acre of land in Sy.No.7 of Kommadi
Village is Rs.2.20 crore as revised on 01.08.2020. The rate of Rs.6
crore per one acre in Kommadi Village, mentioned in the
17
impugned G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 22.01.2021 is without any basis and
is only to deny the petitioner the allotment of subject land for
extraneous considerations. After the issuance of the
G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 07.03.2019, the respondent No.2 issued the
proceedings vide Computer No.848381/Estate/1 -1/2019 dated
22.03.2019 writing to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam,
stating that the District Collector has given advance possession of
Ac. 31.30 cents (an extent of Ac.22.71 cents in Sy.No.7, 165/P &
166 and an extent of Ac. 8.59 cents in Sy.No. 67/P of Kommadi
Village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal & Visakhapatnam District)
in Kommadi Village to the respondent No.2, however the name of
the respondent No. 2 is not mutated in the revenue records. The
2
nd
respondent requested the respondent No.1 to direct the
Tahasildar, Visakhapatnam Rural to carry out the mutation in
favour of the 2
nd
respondent in order to comply with the
G.O.Ms.No.108 dated 07.03.2019 . The respondent No.2 was
forcing the petitioner company for the balance sale consideration
without even getting its name mutated in the revenue records.
12. The petitioner had written letters dated 07.06.2019,
17.06.2019, 12.07.2019, 17.07.2019 and 16.08.2019 requesting
the respondents to provide the basic infrastructure ie., the
approach roads, power and more importantly, the land is still in
the name of the government and the su b-registrar office had
informed the petitioner company that execution of sale deed would
18
not be permissible as the land is not owned by the respondent
No.2. The petitioner reliably learnt that there were certain
complaints received by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the
subject land falls within Eco-sensitive Zone. The respondent No.1
issued letter No. 26754/M1/2012 dated 01.10.2019 requesting
the respondent No.2 to keep the file on hold until further
examination of the government. Further joint inspection appears
to have been conducted and report came to be prepared vide
Rc.No.4409/2019/D/ dated 12.01.2020 stating that the subject
land does not fall within Eco Sensitive Zone. The petitioner was
not put on notice with respect to any of the complaints received in
respect of the subject land ever and any mention to them in the
impugned order, without putting the petitioner on notice would
violate the principles of natural justice.
13. While so, due to Covid-19 pandemic period, the life came to
stand still. The petitioner addressed an e-mail dated 17.04.2020 to
the respondent No.2 requesting it to get the land mutated in its
name, from the District Collector, in order to execute sale deed at
the earliest. The 2
nd
respondent neither responded to the email nor
communicated that the mutation was done its favour and a sale
deed can be executed in favour of the petitioner. On 23.11.2020, it
was reported before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.10686 of 2018
that since the lands are not mutated in favour of the 2
nd
respondent, it was not in a position to execute sale deed and
19
sought time to report before Hon’ble Court as and when the
mutation to be effected by the Collector and accordingly the matter
was posted to 01.12.2020 and on that date, it was reported that
the learned Advocate General would appear on behalf of the
respondents therein and requested for time. The matter was finally
posted to 22.01.2021. On that date, the learned counsel for the
2
nd
respondent reported that G.O.Ms.No. 729 dated 24.10.2008
was cancelled by the 1
st
respondent. Upon enquiry, the petitioner
got to know that the respondent No. 1 issued the impugned
G.O.Ms.No. 4 dated 22.01.2021 permitting the 2
nd
respondent to
cancel the allotment of Ac.31.30 cents of land in Kommadi Village
to the petitioner. The 2
nd
respondent immediately on the very same
day issued consequential order in Rc.No.9464/2005/L & T/F1
dated 22.01.2021 cancelling the allotment of the subject land in
Kommadi Village in favour of the petitioner. The 2
nd
respondent
also issued the demand draft of Rs.6,24,00,000/- in favour of the
petitioner towards refund of the amount paid by the petitioner in
the year 2007 towards sale consideration. The petitioner was not
given any opportunity before issuing the impugned proceedings by
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
14. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents relying upon the counter
affidavit of the respondent No.1, submits that the respondent
20
No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.4, MA & UD Department dated
22.01.2021 permitting the respondent No.2 to cancel the
land allotment to an extent of Ac.31-30 cents (an extent of
Ac.22-71 cents in Survey No.7, 165/P & 166 and an extent of
Ac.8-59 cents in Survey No.67/P of Kommadi Village,
Visakhapatnam Rural (Mandal), Visakhapatnam District) in
favour of the petitioner company and the consequential order
in Rc.No.9464/2005/L&T/F1, dated 22.01.2021 is passed by
the respondent No.2 which are under challenge in this writ
petition.
15. Initially, an extent of Ac.55-15 cents in Survey No.1 of
Vepagutnta Village of Pendurthy Mandal, was handed over to
the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, (VUDA)
by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi vide delivery
receipt Rc.No.411/2000/SPL.RI, dated 13.09.2000 for
promoting comprehensive development. The VUDA proposed
to develop the said site with the housing project on Public
Private Partnership (PPP) Mode. Hence, a notification was
issued on 11.12.2005 calling for Expression Of Interest (EOI)
from the prospective and reputed developers registered in the
country or from the Multinational Companies (MNCs) having
21
consortium with Indian Companies to design, build, finance
and market independent dwelling units/bungalows.
16. The petitioner company quoted the highest financial bid
and had passed the evaluation of technical, business and
commercial proposals and emerged as the highest successful
bidder for the development of Housing Project at Vepagunta,
admeasuring Ac.55-15 cents in Survey No.1 of Vepagunta
Village on joint venture basis under PPP Mode. Basing on the
above, the VUDA had entered into an agreement with the
petitioner company for development of the housing project.
The petitioner paid @10% minimum guaranteed amount
(MGA) of Rs.6,24,00,000/- vide VUDA receipt No.147700
dated 04.04.2007 besides one time project development (Non-
refundable) fees of Rs.43,12,000/- on 04.04.2007 towards
the site in Survey No.1 of Vepagutna, measuring Ac.55 -15
cents. At that stage, the Forest Department raised objections
on the ownership of the land stating that this land was
included in the Reserve Forest Block. Hence, the letters were
addressed by the VUDA for the forest department and to the
Government for exemption of the land from the provisions of
the Forest Department, but the same has not been deleted.
22
17. In view of the said dispute in the matter of allotment of
land to the petitioner company in Survey No.1 of Vepagunta
Village at the request of the petitioner company the
respondent No.2 had requested the Government for
consideration of allotment of the following alternative land
measuring Ac.49-33 cents in Kommadi village of
Visakhapatnam (Rural) @ Rs.1.53 crores per acre on outright
sale basis in lieu of the land in Survey No.1 of Vepagunta
Village.
Sl.No. Survey NO. & Village Extent in Ac-Cts.,
1. 7 of Kommadi 33.38
2. 67/P of Kommadi 8.84
3. 164/P of Kommadi 7.11
The Government after careful examination of the
matter, permitted the VUDA to allot the alternative land
measuring an extent of AC.49.33 cents in Kommadi Village @
Rs.1.53 crores per acre on outright sale basis in favour of the
petitioner company in lieu of the land in Survey No.1 of
Vepagunta Village for construction of housing units with the
conditions as stipulated in the development agreement and
as per the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.729, dated 24.10.2008
23
by the Government in this regard. Subsequently, the
petitioner company filed an arbitration application No.13 of
2013 before the Hon’ble High Court alleging that the VUDA
had neither implemented the provisions of the development
agreement dated 31.03.2007 nor refunded the amount due
and claimed damages/compensation of Rs.1,76,00,00,000/ -
on the ground that the land had not been handed over to
them so far. The Hon’ble High Court in its order dated
12.07.2013 appointed the Hon’ble Justice Sri Tamada Gopala
Krishna, retired Judge of the High Court as Sole arbitrator to
adjudicate the disputes between the parties by virtue of the
development agreement dated 31.03.2007. When the matter
was under examination by the VUDA, keeping in view of the
order of the Hon’ble High Court in A.A.No.13, dated
12.07.2013 and the Government’s G.O.Ms.No.729, dated
24.10.2008, another company viz., Deccan Infrastructure
and Land Holding Ltd., (DIL) vide its letter
No.TILL/Lands/15/2010, dated 09.04.2010, requested the
VUDA to conduct a Joint Inspection as the land was
belonging to the AP Housing Board and the DIL Ltd.,
Hyderabad measuring an extent of Ac.42.64 cents in Survey
No.164/2, 164/3, 165 (carved out of Survey No.7 of
24
Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam Rural and Mandal) was
found to be partly overlapping with the land in Survey No.1/p
of Paradesipalem village which belonged to VUDA. Hence the
VUDA authorities, the Housing Board and M/s.Deccan
Infrastructure and Land Holding Ltd., Hyderabad conducted
a joint inspection on their lands on 29.10.2013. It was found
during the Joint Inspection that there was a discrepancy in
fixation of village boundary between Komadi Survey No.7 and
the adjoining Survey No.1/2 of Paradesipalem village it was
found that the available land for the APHB and DIL was only
Ac.25-92 cents of Ac.42-674 cents, allotted to them. Hence
the status of the lands to be given to the petitioner company
was worked out as detailed below.
Sl.No. Survey NO. &
Village
Extent as per
G.O.Ms.No.72
9, dated
24.10.2008
Event available
on ground,
ready to be
handed over to
the petitioner
Remarks on
readily
available land
to be handed
over the
petitioner
1. 7 of Kommadi Ac.33-38 cts Ac.22-71 cts
2. 67/P of
Kommadi
Ac.8-84 cts Ac.8-59 cts Ac.0-25 cts is
within the
boundary wall
constructed by
the Forest
Department
3. 164/P of
Kommadi
Ac.7-11 cents Ac.6-22 cents Ac.0-33 cents,
extent of land
is under Forest
Department’s
encroachment
and will be
25
handed over
after resolving
the boundary
dispute with the
Forest
Department.
4. Total Ac.49-33 cts Ac.37.52 cents Ac.31-30 cents,
immediately
available, Ac.6-
22 cents, will be
handed over
after resolving
the issue with
the Forest
Department.
Accordingly, the VUDA informed the decision of the
VUDA Board to the petitioner that VUDA can handover
nearly Ac.37-52 cents, against AC.49-33 cents, as per the
GO., and as Ac.6-22 cents in Survey No.164/P of Kommadi
village were under encroachment of Forest Department, the
same would be handed over to the petitioner after the
boundary dispute is resolved and the petitioner was
requested to take over possesssion of the available extent of
Ac.22-71 cents in Survey No.7 of Kommadi village and
Ac.8-59 cents in Survey No.67/P of Kommadi village.
The petitioner expressed willingness to accept and take over
possession of the land parcels of Ac.22-71 cents in Survey
No.7 and Ac.8-059 cents in Survey No.67/P of Kommadi
village, totally an extent of Ac.31-30 cents @ Rs.1-53 crores
26
per acre, which comes to Rs.47,88, 90,000/-. The petitioner
company said that Rs.6.24 crores has already been paid by
them and that they were ready to pay the balance amount
ofRs.41,64,90,000/-. The petitioner company also requested
that the site cost for an extent of Ac.6-22 cents in Survey
No.164/P of Kommadi village i.e., Rs.9,51,66,000/- would be
paid after resolving the Forest issue and also requested to
issue the draft sale deed for the land parcels of
Ac.22-71 cents in Survey No.7 and Ac.8-59 cents in Survey
No.67/P, after which, they would file affidavit for withdrawal
of arbitration case against the VUDA, which is pending.
The petitioner company had not pursued the arbitration
proceedings ordered by the Hon’ble High Court and the same
is pending.
18. After examining the pros and corns in the allotment of
total land of Ac.49-33 cents, the petitioner company was
informed through letters in Rc.No.9464/2005/PMU, dated
03.07.2014 and dated 12.02.2016 that since an amount of
Rs.6,24,00,000/- was paid earlier towards 10% minimum
guaranteed amount, the petitioner company may pay the
balance amount of Rs.41,64,90,000/ - towards Ac.31-30
cents unencumbered land @ Rs.1.53 crores per acre on
27
outright sale basis. The petitioner company was also
informed that Rs.9,51,66,000/- can be paid after resolving
the land dispute to an extent of Ac.6-22 cents in Survey
No.164/P of Kommadi village with the Forest Department.
This is as per the VUDA board decision against the allotment
of Ac.49-33 cents as per the G.O.Ms.No.729 dated
24.10.2008 to which the petitioner company had agreed. At
the request of the petitioner company vide letter dated
20.08.2016 the draft sale deed for an extent of Ac.8-59 cents
in SurveyNo.67/P of Kommadi village, and Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for the balance lands to be considered
for execution of sale deeds subject to availability of lands
were sent to the petitioner company vide VUDA’s letter
Rc.No.9464/2005/PMU/F1 dated 20.09.2016. However the
petitioner company responded to the offer made in this
regard after some correspondence and addressed a letter vide
Rc.No.L&T-VUL/VUDA/014, dated 27.07.2017 raising the
following two issues for their clearance before proceeding
with the registration of the available land of Ac.31-30 cents.
1) Hindrances created by the neighbourhood land owners,
to restrict the approach to S.No.67/2.
2) Documentation of exchange of land between the VUDA
and the APHB in respect of S.No.7 of Kommadi and
28
submission of land exchange documents, land use
conversion papers to MA & UD in the required proforma
as per the APHB Board resolut ion in respect of
exchange of land between APHB & VUDA dated
31.01.2017.
In this regard, a Joint Survey was already conducted on
09.06.2017 with the three teams i..e, VUDA officials, APHB
Officials, L & T – VVL officials and re-fixation of the
boundaries between the VUDA and the APHB with respect to
Ac.22-71 cents, in Survey No.7 of Kommadi was completed
and approach road was formed. Accordingly, two sets of
plans were prepared. Further, a detailed letter was addressed
to the Government MA & UD Department vide
Rc.No.9464/2005/PMU/F1, dated 07.09.2017 for according
permission to hand over an extent of Ac.31 -30 cents
unencumbered land which was available with VUDA against
Ac.49-33 cents approved for allotment to the petitioner
company by the Government at the rate of Rs.1.53 crores per
acre vide G.O.Ms.No.729 dated 24.10.2008. The permission
was still awaited from the Government and soon after its
approval, the registration of the Ac.31-30 cents of the land
would be made in favour of the petitioner company, w hich
29
includes the land admeasuring Ac.8 -59 cents in Survey
No.67/P of Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam District.
19. While the W.P.No.10686 of 2018 is pending for
adjudication, the respondent no.1 issued G.O.Ms.NO.108,
MA & UD, dated 07.03.2019 according per mission to this
respondent to execute the sale deed for the land to an extent
of Ac.31-30 cents (i.e., Ac.22-71 cents in Survey No.7, 165/P,
& 166 and Ac.8-59 cents in Survey No.67/P of Kommadi
village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam
District in favour of M/s. L & T Vision Ventures Ltd., on
payment of balance amount of Rs.41.64 crores with 7%
simple interest from 24.10.2008 to till payment made to take
further action in the subject matter and also issued draft
proforma sale deed dated 02.05.2019 to the petitioner.
Instead of conveying its willingness to the respondent No.2,
the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Government, MA
& UD dated 26.06.2019 to consider the following grievances
and do the needful.
a) May allow the SPV to get registration in parcel while by
paying the land cost calculated @ Rs.1.53 crore per acre
(principle amount) and facilitate them to proceed with the
30
benching/levelling of hill portion of Ac.22.71 cents to start
the project.
b) May allow SPV to pay the interest amount alon g with the
project approval fee as per G.OMsd.No.108, MA & UD (M)
Dept., dated 07.03.2019, and
c) May instruct VMRDA to provide the required infrastructure
line reads, power and water and all necessary approvals to
be proposed land parcels and allow the SPV to develop the
same.
d) The Government vide letter NO.26754/M1/2012, dated
15.07.2019, having examined the matter in detail,
did not accept the plea of the applicant firm and instructed
respondent No.2 to take necessary action.
As per the earlier Governmen t orders issued in
G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 07.03.2019 the petitioner agreed to
pay the balance sale consideration along with 7% simple
interest from 24.10.2008 as fixed by the Government. The
petitioner also requested to allow ample time to raise the
required money to get the said land parcels of a total extent
of Ac.31-30 cents i..e, Ac.8-59 cents and Ac.22-71cents to be
registered by the respondent No.2 in two phases i.e., in the
first phase and the second phase respectively after paying the
demanded amount to the respondent No.2. This request of
31
the petitioner was not considered as it is beyond the scope of
the Government Order. The petitioner was therefore informed
through letter in Rc.No.9464/05/PMU dated 21.03.2019 to
pay the balance principal amount of Rs.41.64 crores along
with 7% simple interest from 24.10.2008 to 31.03.2019
tentatively as mentioned below in one lumpsum so as to
execute the sale deeds for the above land parcels by the
VMRDA in one go and not in parcels subject to withdrawal of
all the court cases filed against the VMRDA/the respondent
No.2 herein. The petitioner was informed that the final
interest amount would be calculated till the date of payment
and registration would be done within 15 days of receipt of
payment in one lumpsum for both the parcels together.
1. Balance principal amount - Rs.41,64,00,000/-
2. Simple Interest @ 7% per
annum from 24.10.2008 to
31.03.2019 - Rs.30,43,37,063/-
Total amount - Rs.72,07,37,063/-
In spite of issuance of the notice, the petitioner not paid the
amount. Since the petitioner did not comply with the letter
RC.No.9464./05/PMU dated 21.03.2019 issued by the respondent
No.2 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 07.03.2019 of the
32
government MA & UD Department, it was reported to the
Government by the VMRDA vide letter No.2426/04/F1 dated
17.12.2020 that the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.88.73 crores
including the simple interest for the period between 24.10.2008 to
31.12.2020. However, the petitioner did not pay any amount and
no reply has been given in this regard. As per the SRO value
Rs.2.20 per acre but prevailing market values are so high, due to
scarcity of land and demand for the land in Visakhapatnam, it
may fetch much higher rate per acre in open auction. As the land
value was arrived through auction in 2008, only 10% minimum
guarantee amount of the value of the land originally bided, is paid
as Minimum guaranteed Amount, and as the petitioner is expected
to sell the developed land at today’s market rates, but not the
rates of 2008, present market value of the land has to be
reassessed. The Government, after careful examination of the
matter, permitted the respondent No.2 to cancel the land
allotment to an extent of Ac.31-30 cents (i.e., Ac.22-71 cents in
Survey No.7, 165/P and 166 and Ac.8-59 cents in Survey No.67/P
of Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal,
Visakhapatnam) in favour of the petitioner by reimbursing already
paid amount with simple interest from the date of payment and
the respondent No.2 was ordered to take further necessary action
in the matter accordingly vide G.O.Ms.No.4 MA & UD Dept (M)
dated 22.01.2021.
33
20. Accordingly, the allotment of the land to an extent of
Ac.31-30 cents (i.e., an extent of Ac.22-71 cents in Survey No.7,
165/P, 166 and an extent of Ac.8-59 cents in Survey No.67/P of
Kommadi village, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam)
in favour of the petitioner by reimbursing already paid amount
with simple interest is hereby cancelled as mentioned below:
a) An amount of Rs.6,24,00,000/- towards 10% Minimum
guaranteed amount paid by M/s. L & T Vision Ventures
Ltd., by way of Cheque No.618502 dated 31.03.2007 of
SBI Commercial Branch, Hyderabad hereby refunded by
way of Demand Draft bearing No.034767255 dated
22.01.2021 of Indian Overseas Bank, VMRDA Branc h,
Visakhapatnam drawn in favour of M/s. L & T Vision
Ventures Ltd enclosed.
b) The simple interest from the date of payment on the
amount already paid by the M/s. L & T Vision Ventures
Ltd will be reimbursed immediately after receiving
clarification on the rate of interest from the Government.
Subsequently, the Government vide letter
No.26754/M1/2021 dated 04.02.2021 addressed to the
respondent No.2, informing that the SBI marginal cost of lending
rate is 6.9% and therefore, respondent No.2 is permitted to pay at
the rate of 7% of simple interest from the date of payment to
M/s. L & T Vision Ventures Ltd., i.e. the simple interest worked
34
out to Rs.6,03,38,236/- out of this amount, deduction of TDS @
7.5% (which comes to Rs.45,25,368/-) under Section 194a of IT
Act 1961, accordingly, a Demand Draft bearing No.034877885,
dated 18.02.2021 and Demand Draft bearing No.934767885,
dated 18.02.2021 for Rs.5,58,12,868/- of Indian Overseas Bank,
VMRDA Branch, Visakhapatnam drawn in favour of M/s. L & T
Vision Ventures Ltd., has been sent to the petitioner company by
registered post vide postal receipt No. EN 33464875IN for
Hyderabad address & EN 33464861 in for Chennai address on
01.03.2021.
21. In view of the above said facts and circumstances and upon
consideration of the rival submissions, it is to be seen that broadly
the facts are not in dispute. Initially the land in an extent of
Ac.55.15 cents in Sy.No.1 of Vepagunta Village of Pendurthi
Mandal, Visakhapatnam was handed over to the 2
nd
respondent
for promoting the comprehensive development. Then the 2
nd
respondent proposed to develop the said sight with a housing
project on Public Private Partnership (PPP) Mode. A notification
was issued on 11.12.2005 calling for Expression of Interest from
the prospective and reputed developers as mentioned above. The
petitioner company became the highest successful bidder for the
development of Housing project at Vepagunta in an extent of
Ac.55.15 cents in Sy.No.1 of the said village on Joint Venture
Basis under PPP Mode. Basing on the same, the 2
nd respondent
35
entered into a Development Agreement with the petitioner
company for the Housing Project. The petitioner paid at 10%
Minimum Guarantee Amount (MGA) of Rs.6,24,00,000/ - dated
04.04.2007 as detailed above. At that stage, the F orest
Department claimed that the said land was inclu ded in the
Reserve Forest Block. Then the 1
st
respondent after careful
examination of the matter permitted the 2
nd
respondent to allot an
alternative land in an extent of Ac. 49.33 cents in Kommadi Village
at Rs.1.53 Crore per acre on outright sale basis in favour of the
petitioner in lieu of the land in Sy.No.1 of Vepagunta Village for
construction of housing units with the conditions as stipulated in
the above said Development Agreement and as per the o rders
issued in G.O.Ms.No. 729 dated 24.10.2008. Subsequently, the
petitioner company filed arbitration application No. 13 of 2013
before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming
damages/compensation of Rs.1,76,00,000/ - in which the learned
Sole Arbitrator was appointed to resolve the dispute vide order
dated 12.07.2013. Subsequently, the 2
nd
respondent authority,
Housing Board and M/s. Deccan Infrastructure and Land Holding
Ltd., Hyderabad conducted a Joint inspection on the said lands on
29.10.2013 and it was found that an extent of Ac.22.71 cents in
Sy.No.7 of Kommadi Village, Ac.8.59 cents in Sy.No.67/P of
Kommadi Village and Ac.6.22 cents in Sy.No.164/P of Kommadi
Village in total Ac. 37.52 cents is readily available to hand over the
36
same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the 2
nd
respondent informed
the petitioner that it can hand over nearly Ac.37.52 cents as
against Ac.49.33 cents as per the G.Os and Ac.6.22 cents in
Sy.No.164/P of Kommadi Village under the encroachment of the
Forest Department will be handed over to the petitioner after the
boundary dispute is resolved and the petitioner was requested to
take over the possession of the available extent of Ac. 22.71 cents
in Sy.No.7 of Kommadi Village and Ac.8.59 cents in Sy.No. 67/P of
Kommadi Village. The petitioner expressed willingness to take over
the land parcels of Ac. 22.71 cents in Sy.No.7 and Ac.8.59 cents in
Sy.No. 67/P in total an extent of Ac.31.30 cents at Rs. 1.53 crore
per acre which comes to Rs. 47,88,90,000/ -. The petitioner
company also informed that Rs.6.24 Crores had already paid
towards MGA and it is ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.
41,64,90,000/-. The petitioner company also informed that site
cost of Rs.9,51,66,000/- for an extent of Ac. 6.22 cents in Sy.No.
164/P of Kommadi Village will be paid after resolving the Forest
issue and requested the 2
nd
respondent to issue draft sale deed for
the land parcels of Ac. 22.71 cents in Sy.No.7 and Ac.8.59 cents in
Sy.No. 67/P by submitting further that it will withdraw the
arbitration case. Then the petitioner company was also informed
through the letters dated 03.07.2014 and 12.02.2016 that it may
pay the balance amount of Rs. 41,64,90,000/- towards Ac. 31.30
cents unencumbered land at the rate of Rs. 1.53 Crore per acre on
37
outright sale basis. At the request of the petitioner company, the
draft sale deed for an extent of Ac. 8.59 cents in Sy.No.67/P of
Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam District and memorandum of
understanding for the remaining lands to be considered for
execution of sale deed subject to availability of land were sent to
the petitioner vide letter of the 2
nd
respondent dated 20.09.2016.
But the petitioner company responded to the same vide its letter
dated 27.07.2017 raising two issues for their clearance before
proceeding for the registration as mentioned above. Again a Joint
Survey was conducted on 09.06.2017 with respect to Ac.22.71
cents in Sy.No.7 of Kommadi Village and approach road is formed.
The 1
st
respondent also issued G.O.Ms.No. 108 MA & UD (M)
Dept., dated 07.03.2019 accord ing permission to the 2
nd
respondent to execute the sale deed for the land in an extent of Ac.
31.30 cents (Ac. 22.71 cents in Sy.No. 7, 165/P and 166 and
Ac.8.59 cents in Sy.No. 67/P of Kommadi Village, Visakhapatnam
Rural (Mandal), Visakhapatnam District) in favour of the petitioner
on payment of balance amount of Rs. 41.64 Crores with 7 %
Simple Interest from 24.10.2008. Accordingly, on 21.03.2019, the
2
nd
respondent requested the petitioner to convey its willingness in
clearing the balance principal amount with simple interest at 7%
per annum from 24.10.2008 till the payment is made to take
further action in the subject matter by issuing draft proforma sale
deed on 02.05.2019 to the petitioner. But without conveying its
38
willingness, the petitioner addressed a letter to the 1
st
respondent
dated 26.06.2019 to consider the issues/grievances as mentioned
above before proceeding further in the matter. As per the earlier
Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No. 108 dated 07.03.2019,
the petitioner agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 41.64
Crores with 7 % Simple Interest from 24.10.2008 as fixed by the
government. The petitioner also requested to provide sufficient
time to raise the required money to get the said land parcels of
total extent of Ac.31.30 cents i.e., Ac.8.59 cents and Ac.22.71
cents to be registered by the 2
nd
respondent in two phases ie., in
the 1
st
phase and the 2
nd
phase respectively after paying the
demanded amount to the 2
nd
respondent but this request of the
petitioner was not considered by the respondents as it is beyond
the scope of the above said government order. Hence, the
petitioner was informed through the letter dated 21.03.2019 to
pay the balance principle amount of Rs. 41.64 Crores with 7 %
Simple Interest from 24.10.2008 in one lumpsum for the purpose
of executing the sale deed for the above said land parcels by the
2
nd
respondent at one stretch subject to withdrawal of the court
cases filed against the 2
nd
respondent.
22. As stated supra, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs.
88.73 Crores including the Simple Interest for the period between
24.10.2008 to 31.12.2020. However, the petitioner did not pay any
amount and no reply has been given thereafter. After having
39
waited sufficiently for a long time and as the SRO value of the said
land is at Rs. 2.20 Crores per acre and the prevailing market value
is much higher, the government after examining the issue
thoroughly permitted the 2
nd
respondent to cancel the subject land
allotment to an extent of Ac.31.30 cents situated in Kommadi
Village as detailed above in favour of the petitioner by reimbursing
the already paid amount with Simple Interest from the date of
payment to the petitioner. Accordingly, the 1
st
respondent issued
the impugned G.O.Ms.No.4 MA & UD Departm ent dated
22.01.2021 and consequentially the 2
nd
respondent returned the
Minimum Guarantee Amount of Rs. 6,24,00,000/ - with 7% Simple
Interest as mentioned above.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, it can be safely concluded that
there is no consensus ad idem between the parties with respect to
the sale consideration and the free hold character of the subject
land. There was no acceptance by the petitioner for the offer made
by the respondents and the petitioner ultimately did not come
forward to pay the balance sale consideration and take possession
of the subject land inspite of there being offers repeatedly as
stated above. Except showing readiness and willingness on paper,
it never acted upon thereafter. Hence, it cannot be construed as a
concluded contract at any stage of the transactions as occurred by
way of continuous negotiations, proceedings, correspondence and
issuance of G.Os time to time as detailed above. Unless there is a
40
payment of sale consideration and delivery of possession of the
subject land on execution of the sale deeds, the above said
development agreement also will not come-in to play. In view of the
same, no mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioner.
24. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Interim Orders if any, deemed to have
been vacated.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN
31.10.2023
UPS/LMV
Legal Notes
Add a Note....