Judgment : This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings dated 06.05.2013, canceling the allotment-cum-resumption notice, duly determining the sale agreement and forfeiting the EMD, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to suspend the operation of cancellation of allotment-cum-resumption notice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s company is one of the major manufacturers of TMT Bars in South India for the last two decades and having experience in manufacturing the steel bars etc., requested the respondents for allotment of land at Sirasanambedu Village of Nellore District in the year 2008 for establishing a steel plant for manufacturing steel Billets, TMT and CTD bars, sponge iron, Ferroalloys etc. Basing on the application of the petitioner, the respondents agreed in principle for allotting 50 acres of land vide letter No.28/AMW/D8/ARS/NLR/2009, dated 21.01.2009 and directed to submit an application in a prescribed format with detailed project report along with advance deposit of Rs.25,00,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner forwarded the application duly filled in all respects vide their letter dated 05.02.2009. Having satisfied with the details furnished in the application along with the project report, the respondents directed the petitioner to deposit rupees one crore towards part payment of sale consideration for allotment of land of Acres 50.00 vide letter No. 28/AMW/D8/ARS/NLR/2009, dated 25.05.2009. Basing on the above letter, the petitioner has deposited an amount of rupees one crore through RTGS to the respondent on 27.05.2009 and after receiving the said amount the 2nd respondent has offered the land to the petitioner to an extent of Ac.58.33 cents for establishing the steel plant, situated at Industrial park, Sirasanamdedu village, Pellakuru Mandal of Naidupet, Guduru Revenue Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide letter No. 28/AMW/D8/ARS/NLR/2009, dated 18.06.2009 and the rate per each acre was fixed at Rs.2 lakhs since the total land allotted is Ac.58.33 cents total consideration amounts to Rs.1,16,66,000/-, therefore the balance sale consideration of Rs.16,66,000/- along with service charge @ 15% and processing fee @ R.10,000/- per acre was paid to the respondent and entered into registered agreement of sale dated 27.06.2009 vide document No.1302 of 2009 before the concerned Sub-Registrar’s office situated at Naidupet and the 2nd respondent has made provisional allotment of Ac.58.33 cents vide letter No.ZO/APIIC/NLR/Metals/Land/09/412, dated 27.06.2009, putting certain terms and conditions. 3. 3. It is also stated that the respondents insisted the petitioner to sign the possession certificate on 29.06.2009 for confirmation of provisional allotment even though the land was not measured and demarcated on the field for which the petitioner obeyed and signed the possession certificate. The respondent confirmed the said land to the petitioner vide letter No.ZO/NLR/IP, Sirasanamdedu/ARS Metals/2009/531, dated 29.06.2009. It is stated that the petitioner unable to undertake any works as the said land was not measured and demarcated and also due to resistance from villagers, whose lands were acquired by the Revenue Department, on the ground that the revenue authorities have not paid compensation to them and the efforts made by the petitioner in this regard to resolve the dispute with the original land owners and with the respondents has become futile. Though, petitioner addressed several letters for extension of time, there was no response. The respondents issued show-cause notice dated 22.06.2012 as to why the allotment should not be cancelled in view of non fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the sale agreement. The petitioner sent reply dated 09.07.2012 narrating the facts leading to non commencement of the work as stated supra. The Sub-Collector, Gudur, assured the respondents’ officials as well as the petitioner that the amount paid by the respondents was still with the local revenue department and the disbursement to the land owners would be completed by local revenue officials shortly. However, it has not been done so far. Inspite of petitioner writing letters dated 07.11.2012 and 14.12.2012 to the Sub-Collector and RDO, Gudur, under intimation to APIIC, the respondents failed to comply the needful. In spite of having knowledge about the incidents that took place after allotment and subsequent events, the second respondent sent a letter dated 06.05.2013, cancelling the land to an extent of Ac.58.33 cents at Industrial park, Sirasanambedu, allotted to the petitioner, for non implementation of the project duly determining the sale agreement and forfeiting the EMD and requested to handover back the vacant possession of the said land on or before 27.05.2013 to the M (AM), APIIC Zonal Office, Nellore, failing which action will be taken to resume the possession of the land. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. After writ petition is filed, this Court on 22.05.2013, granted status-quo and there after it was extended from time to time. 5. Hence, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. After writ petition is filed, this Court on 22.05.2013, granted status-quo and there after it was extended from time to time. 5. Now the respondents have filed vacate petition along with the counter affidavit. The respondents state that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch the same arises out of a non-statutory contract, in relation to a commercial transaction. Further, the petitioner is not entitled to ask for a writ of Mandamus, inasmuch as the petitioner does not have a crystallized enforceable legal right that can be sought to be enforced in a writ petition.6. It is admitted that allotment of land to the petitioner, who requested for allotment land at Industrial Park, Sirasanambedu Village to set-up of a ‘Steel Plant’ and accordingly, the respondents allotted an extent of Ac.58.33 cents of land in the said village. On payment of sale consideration, a conditional agreement of sale was executed on 27.06.2009 and physical possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on 29.06.2009. Clause 9(c) of the agreement stipulates that the allottee shall within six months of being put in possession of the land, commence construction of factory buildings after securing necessary clearances from the competent authorities and it also stipulates that the allottee shall go into commercial production within two years from being put in possession. Clause 9 (o) of the agreement stipulates the consequences of breach of the covenant of the agreement by the allottee and specifies that the allotment would stand cancelled in the event of the allottee not adhering to the terms and conditions thereof.7. The petitioner failed to implement the project within stipulated period as mentioned in the allotment letter and also sale agreement. Initially a notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.07.2011 and then a show cause notice was also issued on 22.06.2012. The reply furnished by the petitioner to the above said notice was examined and found that the same was not satisfactory as the petitioner had not put in sincere efforts for implementing the project within the stipulated period. 8. Hence, there was breach of terms and conditions of the agreement, the allotment of land to the petitioner was cancelled on 06.05.2013. The agreement of sale is a conditional one and does not create any enforceable right in favour of the allottee. 8. Hence, there was breach of terms and conditions of the agreement, the allotment of land to the petitioner was cancelled on 06.05.2013. The agreement of sale is a conditional one and does not create any enforceable right in favour of the allottee. The execution of sale deed which is yet to take place, would be subject to compliance with the terms and conditions and project implementation being a major pre-requisite. The petitioner failed to adhere to its commitments under the contract and such being the case, is not entitled to any relief. It is also stated that physical possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on 29.06.2009 and in evidence thereof the representative of the petitioner had signed the same. As such it is not correct to state that possession was not handedover to the petitioner. The averment that the petitioner was insisted to sign possession certificate is a baseless one. It is also stated that the land has been acquired and the compensation has been paid to the original land owners and thereafter the land was handed over to the petitioner. Further, encroachment on the eastern side of the allotted land is denied. It is also stated that in the letter dated 24.02.2010, the petitioner himself admitted that he did not have the financial means to proceed with the project which is clear from the relevant portion of the said letter which reads as follows; “we are also on the process of arranging finance from the financial institution for the new project. So we request you to extend us six months time to commence the civil work.” 9. It is for the petitioner to obtain all statutory clearances and it cannot blame the respondents for the default on its part. It is also stated that the petitioner paid the conversion fee on 30.07.2010 i.e. more than a year after possession of the land was taken. It is also stated no construction activity was commenced and the project was not implemented. The very purpose for which the allotment was made has been effectively defeated by the petitioner. The allottee being permitted to retain the land in an idle state would amount to granting a premium for such default, thereby effectively defeating the very objective of industrial development. This, apart from frustrating the very concept of development of industries would cause heavy injury to the public cause. The allottee being permitted to retain the land in an idle state would amount to granting a premium for such default, thereby effectively defeating the very objective of industrial development. This, apart from frustrating the very concept of development of industries would cause heavy injury to the public cause. It would also amount to denial and deprivation of land to some other genuine entrepreneur for effective industrial use. If plots allotted to entrepreneurs are kept vacant for such a long period of time would directly result in the flight of capital, investment, trade and industry from Andhra Pradesh to other States. Keeping in view the liberalized economic policy, prompt and effective utilization of land allotted for industrial use is very much essential in the interest of public cause, providing employment and a revenue generation. Being a party to the contract cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments reiterating the pleas in the writ affidavit. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. P.Roy Reddy, submits that the petitioner was allotted land and a conditional agreement of sale was executed. According to Clause 9 (c) of the agreement the petitioner is required to commence the work within six months from the date of allotment and complete the work within two years from the date of allotment. Since the petitioner would not start the work and complete the project within stipulated time, the allotment is cancelled under Clause 9 (o) of the agreement. As per Clause 9 (o) of the agreement, if the allottee commits breach of the covenants contained in the allotment, the allotment stands cancelled and the agreement which stand determined with prior notice. The authorities have found that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions mentioned under 9 (c) as such they invoked the power under Clause 9 (o) of the agreement and have issued show cause notice to the petitioner dt.22.06.2012, calling explanation from the petitioner and the explanation submitted by the petitioner being found not satisfactory, issued impugned order of cancellation dt.06.05.2013 and as such no interference is called for. He also submits that the authorities waited almost more than four years for passing order of cancellation. He also submits that the authorities waited almost more than four years for passing order of cancellation. He further contends that in similar circumstances, this Court in a decision reported in ECI Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and others ( 2013 (1) ALT 634 )interpreted similar clauses identical to the present case and upheld the cancellation orders. Since the petitioner therein could not commence and complete the project within two years as per Clause 9(c) of the agreement, this Court upheld powers of 9(o) of the agreement and upheld orders of cancellation of allotment. 12. He also relied on another judgment reported in Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 470) in support of his contention. 13. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner was allotted land of Ac.58.33 cents at Industrial Park, Sirasanambedu Village, Pellakuru Mandal of Naidupet, Gudur Revenue Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and a conditional agreement of sale was executed on 27.06.2009 vide document No.1302/2009 and physical possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner on 29.06.2009. It was also an admitted fact that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.1,16,66,000/- for the allotment. As per clause 9 (c) of the agreement the petitioner shall within six months of being put in possession of the land, commence the construction of factory buildings and shall go into commercial production within two years from being put in possession. Clause 9 (c) of the agreement of sale reads as follows; “c) THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART shall within Six Months of being put in possession of the said land and commence construction of factory buildings after securing necessary clearances from the competent authorities, like building plan approvals filling application with APTRANSCO, other permissions/clearances etc., the party of the second part shall go into commercial production duly erecting machinery and obtaining regular power supply connection within two years of being put in possession of the allotted land.” 14. Since, admittedly the petitioner is unable to commence the work and unable to complete the project within two years, even though the petitioner has given his own reasons for non completion of the project within stipulated time, the authorities have invoked powers under Clause 9 (o) of the agreement. Since, admittedly the petitioner is unable to commence the work and unable to complete the project within two years, even though the petitioner has given his own reasons for non completion of the project within stipulated time, the authorities have invoked powers under Clause 9 (o) of the agreement. Clause 9(o) of the agreement reads as follows: “O) THAT IF THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART commits breach of any of the covenants herein contained the allotment stands cancelled and this agreement shall stand determined with prior notice the party of the Second Part will be treated as an encroacher and a trespasser who will have no right whatsoever in the schedule property under these present and it shall be lawful for the party of the First Part to re-enter upon the said land and resume possession thereof and also of the buildings standing thereon, the transfer made in favour of the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART under these present shall become null and void and all rights of THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART in the schedule property under this agreement and any building therein shall at once cease and determine. Prior notice of there-entry to the Financial Institutions, if necessary will be given by THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART. In such event of cancellation/resumption of the property allotted, the payments made by the Party of the Second Part shall remain forfeited towards use and occupation of the premises. However, the party of the first part may at its option consider refund of the amounts paid by THE PARTY OF THE SECOND PART towards the cost of the property subject to the following deductions.” 15. In ECI Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd. v. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and others (supra 1), this Court while interpreting similar clauses like the one in present writ petition held. 11. From a perusal of the above clauses, it is manifest that the date and time are the essence of the contract and it is only on implementing the project in the allotted land the sale deed will be executed and registered. Full payment of the cost of land was paid only as a condition precedent to being placed the petitioner in possession of the land allotted. ‘Implementation’ and ‘substantial implementation’ of the project have clearly been defined in the agreement. Full payment of the cost of land was paid only as a condition precedent to being placed the petitioner in possession of the land allotted. ‘Implementation’ and ‘substantial implementation’ of the project have clearly been defined in the agreement. Until the project is implemented as detailed in clause 3, petitioner is not entitled for execution of the sale deed. Under Clause 9(m) till such time the ownership of the property is transferred to the petitioner, the propery shall continue to remain the property of the APIIC. Clause 9(o) of the agreement clearly provides that if there is any breach of the covenants on the part of the petitioner the allotment stands cancelled and the agreement stands determined and the petitioner will be treated as an encroacher and he will have no right whatsoever in the schedule property and the APIIC can make re-entry into the land and resume possession thereof. In the event of cancellation/resumption of the property allotted, the payments made by the petitioner shall remain forfeited towards use and occupation of the premises. However, the APIIC at its option may consider refund of the amounts paid by the petitioner towards cost of the property subject to certain conditions. This discretion on the part of the APIIC is not absolute. The APIIC was given only option to consider such cases in its discretion. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the agreement of sale does not permit the APIIC to forfeit the sale consideration has no merit. The determination of the agreement of sale made by APIIC by the impugned letter dated 31.03.2003 is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The agreement clearly provides that it is only after due implementation of the project, a sale deed will be executed in favour of the petitioner transferring the ownership of the property and until the same is done, the property continues to vest in APIIC only. 16. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and another v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and another (supra 2), this Court at paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said Judgment held as follows: “23. A party cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the terms of contract, for the reason that contract is a transaction between the two parties and has been entered into with open eyes and understanding the nature of contract. A party cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the terms of contract, for the reason that contract is a transaction between the two parties and has been entered into with open eyes and understanding the nature of contract. Thus, contract being a creature of an agreement between two or more parties, has to be interpreted giving literal meanings unless, there is some ambiguity therein. The contract is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to the words contained in the contract and it is not permissible for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. It is to be interpreted in such a way that its terms may not be varied. The contract has to be interpreted without any outside aid. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract, as it may effect the interest of either of the parties adversely. 24. In DLF Universal Limited v. Town and Country Planning Deptt. (2010) 14 SCC 1 (SCC pp. 14-15, paras 13-15) “13. It is a settled principle in law that a contract is interpreted according to its purpose. The purpose of a contract is the interests, objectives, values, policy that the contract is designed to actualize. It comprises the joint intent of the parties. Every such contract expresses the autonomy of the contractual parties’ private will. It creates reasonable, legally protected expectations between the parties and reliance on its results. Consistent with the character of purposive interpretation, the Court is required to determine the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time the contract so formed. It is not the intent of a single party; it is the joint intent of both the parties and the joint intent of the parties is to be discovered from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation. “14. As is stated in Anson’s Law of Contract: ‘a basic principle of the common law of contract is that the parties are free to determine for themselves what primary obligations they will accept …… Today, the position is seen in a different light. “14. As is stated in Anson’s Law of Contract: ‘a basic principle of the common law of contract is that the parties are free to determine for themselves what primary obligations they will accept …… Today, the position is seen in a different light. Freedom f contract is generally regarded as a reasonable, social, ideal only to the extent that equality of bargaining power between the contracting parties can be assumed and no injury is done to the interests of the community at large.’ 15. The Court assumes: ‘that the parties to the contract are reasonable persons who seek to achieve reasonable results, fairness and efficiency…..In a contract between the joint intent of the parties and the intent of the reasonable person, joint intent trumps, and the Judge should interpret the contract accordingly.’ 17. In Sri Kiran Auto Service and others v. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Kakinada and others ( 2013 (6) ALT 56 ) this Court at paragraph No.18 of the said Judgment held as follows “18. This aspect of the matter was made clear by this Court in ECI Engineering and Construction Co.Ltd (supra 1) in para 11 of the judgment. Merely because the APIIC was generous enough not to initiate action immediately after the expiry of the time granted/extended, it is not open to the petitioners to claim that the time stipulation stood diluted or paled into insignificance. The fortitude and patience shown by the APIIC in this regard cannot be taken advantage of by the allottees. The allotment of industrial plots by the APIIC, being a distribution of State largesse, is intended for achieving industrial development which would not only lead to economic growth but would also generate manifold employment opportunities. This would require allottees of the plots to utilize the opportunity provided and make operational their proposed industrial units as soon as possible. That is the reason why the APIIC, in its wisdom, included a time stipulation in the prescribed format of the allotment orders/agreements of sale, stipulating that the project should be implemented in two years.” 18. Since, admittedly the petitioner entered into agreement with the respondents and obliged to fulfill clause 9(c) of the agreement. As he failed to fulfill the same, authorities have invoked clause 9(o) of the agreement and cancelled the allotment after issuing show cause notice and after receiving explanation of the petitioner, by issuing proceedings dated 06.05.2013. Since, admittedly the petitioner entered into agreement with the respondents and obliged to fulfill clause 9(c) of the agreement. As he failed to fulfill the same, authorities have invoked clause 9(o) of the agreement and cancelled the allotment after issuing show cause notice and after receiving explanation of the petitioner, by issuing proceedings dated 06.05.2013. The respondents waited for almost 4 years before passing impugned order. 19. In view of the pleadings of parties, above discussion and the law laid down in the above cited Judgments, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the respondents vide Lr.No.ZO/APIIC/NLR/ IP-Sirasanambedu / ARS Metals/2010/573 and do not find any merit in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to make representation for refund of payments made by it and the respondent shall consider the same as per rules and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.