Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Final Land Price Can't Be Disowned, Even Decades Later – MMTC Cooperative Liable for Revised Payment to VUDA: Andhra Pradesh `High Court

03 October 2024 1:08 PM

By: sayum


High Court of Andhra Pradesh delivered its judgment in the Appeal Suit No. 393 of 1998, involving the Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation (MMTC) Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited and the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA). The court upheld the trial court's decision, confirming VUDA's demand for additional payment from MMTC Cooperative, following the finalization of land acquisition compensation.

The MMTC Cooperative had entered into a sale agreement with the Visakhapatnam Town Planning Trust (later VUDA) for 66 house plots at Maddilapalem, Visakhapatnam, in 1973. The sale deed specified that the purchase price was tentative, pending final compensation for the land acquisition. In 1986, VUDA issued a demand for additional payment based on the final land cost, resulting in a dispute over the amount due.

The MMTC Cooperative filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that VUDA’s demand for an additional ₹533,275.37 was excessive and illegal. The trial court dismissed the case, prompting this appeal.

The central legal issue was whether VUDA’s demand for additional payment was enforceable, given the sale deed's provision for a tentative price. The sale deed clearly stated that the final price could be adjusted after the completion of land acquisition proceedings.

The appellant (MMTC Cooperative) argued that the variation in compensation for land acquisition should have been reconsidered and communicated again before enforcing it. They contended that the enhanced price demand was arbitrary and should not include legal expenses or interest.

The respondent (VUDA) maintained that the sale deed explicitly stated that the price was tentative and subject to revision, and the appellant had voluntarily agreed to this term. VUDA argued that the MMTC Cooperative was bound to pay the final price once the land acquisition compensation was finalized.

The High Court, presided over by Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, dismissed the appeal, confirming that the MMTC Cooperative was bound by the sale deed terms, which explicitly allowed for a revised final price. The court ruled that:

“The plaintiff cannot disown its liability to pay the final price… the terms and conditions in [the sale deed] are binding on both the parties.”

The court further noted that there was no illegality in VUDA’s actions, as they followed the contractual terms agreed upon by both parties. The claim of the appellant that the demand was arbitrary was dismissed, as the final price was based on proper calculation following the land acquisition proceedings.

Thus, the High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of VUDA and requiring the MMTC Cooperative to pay the additional amount.

Date of Decision :July 1, 2024

MMTC Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority​.

Latest Legal News