APMC must assess belatedly produced business records before cancelling allotment and forfeiting premises.

In 2014, the APMC allotted a shop-cum-godown to the petitioner’s mother, who paid the full allotment amount and entered into a registered lease-cum-sale agreement providing for execution of a sale deed after ten years

After her death in March 2024, the APMC called for records showing business transactions during the preceding five years.

The petitioner did not produce the records within the time given, citing her mother’s death and the unavailability of documents; the APMC then cancelled the allotment and forfeited the premises.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation and forfeiture and sought, among other reliefs, a direction to execute the sale deed.

Whether the APMC’s cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the premises should stand where the petitioner failed to produce the requested business records within the stipulated time, but later produced documents and explained the delay.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an immediate direction for execution of the sale deed, or whether the APMC should first verify the documents and compliance with the lease-cum-sale agreement.

The Court considered the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement and the APMC bye-laws as the basis for the authorities’ action on cancellation, forfeiture, and any alleged sub-lease.

It also relied on a Coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 105844 of 2026, in which cancellation and forfeiture orders were quashed while leaving the authorities at liberty to act on further violations.

The Court did not identify a specific statutory provision governing the dispute; it required the APMC to assess the authenticity of the records and determine compliance with the agreement and bye-laws before taking further action.

The petitioner had failed to provide the requested records in time, but attributed that failure to the death of the sole proprietor and the resulting unavailability of documents.

Documents later placed before the Court appeared, prima facie, to show business transactions during the relevant period, although the APMC disputed their authenticity.

Because authenticity was for the APMC to determine, the Court did not decide the factual dispute or direct an unconditional sale.

It quashed the cancellation and forfeiture orders, required the petitioner to submit the records for verification, and left the APMC free to take action for any established breach, including an alleged sub-lease.

The petitioner was directed to submit the records produced with the petition and application to the APMC within three weeks and to pay ₹1,00,000 in costs within the same period; payment of costs was made a precondition to consideration of the records.

The APMC was directed to verify the documents and pass an appropriate order within six weeks thereafter.

If the demands in the notices were satisfied, it was to consider execution of the sale deed in accordance with the lease-cum-sale agreement.