Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed APIIC’s appeals against invalidation of its demand for 50 per cent of prevailing plot market value to condone delayed construction. The two-year condition appeared only in allotment letters, not the subsequent agreements or sale deeds conveying absolute title after full payment. Unlike a transfer with an express defeasance condition, those deeds did not permit the asserted action. A new allegation of unauthorised land use could not supplement the original grounds. The demand lacked legal basis.
Issues
- Whether the allotment-letter construction deadline survived the later absolute sale deeds.
- Whether the demand for half the prevailing market value had a legal basis.
- Whether alleged misuse first raised orally could support the impugned action.
Provisions considered
- Sections 8, 10 and 11, Transfer of Property Act, 1882The quoted transfer provisions supported the effect of the completed absolute conveyances. The Court distinguished an express conditional interest recognised in Indu Kakkar; the deeds here lacked the asserted super-added condition. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Held
- The construction deadline was confined to the allotment letters. After receipt of full consideration and execution of sale deeds conveying absolute marketable title without that deadline, the Corporation could not insist on the former condition. A valid express condition causing an interest to cease was distinguished, rather than held universally unenforceable. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- The allegation that the land was used for a purpose other than a factory was not pleaded or supported by material and had not been the ground for cancellation or the demand. It could not be introduced orally to sustain that action by new reasons. (¶ 20)
- The Corporation had withdrawn cancellation and instead demanded half the prevailing market value. That demand lacked legal basis after the registered sales. Although the Court discussed proportionality, it ultimately considered further determination of its application unnecessary to the disposition. (¶¶ 19, 21, 22)
Result
All appeals dismissed with costs; the High Court’s relief against the demand for 50 per cent of prevailing market value stands.