Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court has held that when the state government has fixed the market value for the transaction of a piece of its land, and an allottee has paid the sum and the land registered in his favour, the transaction cannot be annulled by the collector on the ground of inadequacy of consideration. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was allowing two petitions by Sri Hayagreeva Farms & Developers challenging the proceedings issued by the Visakhapatnam district collector on August 18, 2015, to resume 12.51 acres situated at Yendada village of the district for construction of an orphanage and a home for the aged.
According to the petitioner, the erstwhile AP government had allotted the land at Rs 45 lakh per acre on December 6, 2008, and it was registered on the name of the firm in 2010. The petitioner said it had applied to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) and Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) for permission and approval for layout in 2012.
The civic authorities have not grant approval as the collector wrote them a letter on July 20, 2012, stating that the AP Legislative Assembly Public Accounts Committee had observed that alienation in favour of petitioner was ordered at low cost. When the petitioner challenged this in 2013, the court held that so long as the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner remained in force, none of the respondents had the power to interfere with the right of the petitioner. The court declared that the collector had no right to address the letter either to the GVMC or to the VUDA.
After that petitioner represented the VUDA to consider his application already submitted for approval, but the VUDA sought a no objection certificate from the collector. When the petitioner approached the collector, he cancelled the allotment. Justice Ramachandra Rao while setting aside the proceedings of the collector imposed Rs 10,000 costs on the state government, directing it to pay the petitioner. The judge said the authorities shall restore possession of the land, if they had taken possession, to the petitioner forthwith. They shall not interfere in any manner with the possession and enjoyment of the property and the district was directed to issue NOC.
