Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court observed that the petitioner had not provided reasonable grounds for defaulting on the payment schedule as agreed. The petitioner also failed to submit any explanation or reply to the notices issued by the respondents, nor did they assign any reasons for the delay or non-compliance with the agreement terms. Consequently, the respondents were entitled to proceed as per the agreement dated November 7, 2024, and the subsequent notices. However, considering the petitioner's counsel's submissions, the Court was inclined to dispose of the writ petition with specific directions. The petitioner was directed to pay 50% of the balance amount (Rs. 17,79,375/-) along with GST and interest within four weeks from the date of the order. The remaining entire amount was to be paid within a further period of four weeks thereafter. The respondents were directed not to take any coercive steps after such payment. Failure to pay the first installment of 50% within the stipulated period would allow the respondents to proceed as per the agreement and law.

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy, proprietor of M/s. Ratnam Granite Cutting and Polishing Industry, was allotted Plot No. 391-A in Growth Centre, Ongole, in 2010. The initial allotment was cancelled due to non-implementation. Subsequently, the land was re-allotted on fresh terms. The petitioner paid 25% of the land cost, and a sale agreement was executed on November 7, 2024. The agreement stipulated payment of the remaining 75% (Rs. 17,79,375/-) with interest within two years of provisional re-allotment, and project implementation within three years. The respondents issued notices on September 11, 2026, and September 21, 2026, demanding payment of the balance land cost within one month, by October 10, 2026. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking an extension of time for payment and to prevent cancellation of the allotment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in restricting the extension of time for payment of the balance land cost to only one month, up to October 10, 2026, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents' action was arbitrary and unreasonable, seeking a further period of one year for payment of the balance land cost along with applicable interest and GST. The petitioner aimed to prevent the cancellation or resumption of the plot allotment solely due to non-payment within the stipulated short period. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through written instructions, reiterated their previous notices, stating that the petitioner had not proposed any alternative payment schedule or sought any indulgence for extension. They further argued that the petitioner failed to provide reasons for the delay in payment and was unable to pay even the registration amount, raising doubts about project implementation.