Allotment of plot - not constructing unit with in two years - Notice to pay fine at 3% for the delay - challenged - High court directed to execute sale deed with out fine - DB confirmed -Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Corporation and its officers are very generous in extending time in favour of the allottees for implementing the projects on the allotted plots and not invoking its right for cancellation and resuming the plot for non-compliance with the terms and conditions of allotment letter and agreement and re-allot the same in public auction in favour of eligible persons. - order for resume of the plot.=2015 SC msklawreports

  Allotment of plot - not constructing unit with in two years - Notice to pay fine at 3% for the delay - challenged - High court directed to execute sale deed with out fine - DB confirmed -
 Apex court held that we are of the view  that  the  Corporation  is
not diligent  in disposing  of  the  industrial  plots  acquired  by  it  in
accordance with law  in favour of the eligible applicants  keeping  in  view
after acquiring the land of the owners for the purpose  of  the  development
of industrial estate and allot the same in favour  of  eligible  persons  to
start industries on the allotted plots to  generate  employment  to  provide
employment to the unemployed youth in  the  State.   
Having  regard  to  the
facts and circumstances of the case, the Corporation and  its  officers  are
very generous in extending time in favour of the allottees for  implementing
the  projects  on  the  allotted  plots  and  not  invoking  its  right  for
cancellation and resuming the plot for non-compliance  with  the  terms  and
conditions of allotment letter and agreement and     re-allot  the  same  in
public auction in favour of eligible persons. 
Therefore, it is  a  fit  case
for this Court to give direction to  the  CoD  of  the  Telangana  State  to
conduct a detailed investigation in the matter against all the officers  who
are involved in the cases of allotment of plots and extending the period  in
favour of the  allottees  for  implementation  of  the  projects  for  which
purpose the plots are allotted and not cancelling  the  allotments  made  by
the Corporation and resumed the plots and dispose of the same in  accordance
with law by taking steps. 
The CoD, Police must investigate the cases in  the
Corporation and  take  suitable  action  in  this  regard  against  officers
involved in such cases.
 With the aforesaid observation and direction to the  State  Government  and
CoD, Police, the appeal is allowed, the impugned  judgments  and  orders  of
both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High  Court  are
set  aside. = 2015 SC msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)