The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SRI C' BUCHI REDDY' SC FORTSHB The Court made the following: ORDER TTIE HON'BLE SRIJUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. I 9768 of 2010 ORDER: ' Heard Sri K. Siddharth Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri C. Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Housing Board appearing for 2nd respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of 4g.33 Sq.yards ol land situated adjacent to Block No.7, pa1 & Accounts Office of Mukarram Jahi Road, on the way to Exhibition Grounds, since last 25 years uninterruptecly. He is running a Tea Stall in the said land. His possession was also recorded in the records and proceedings of2nd respondent and the same has been acknowledged by both the resporLdents in various proceedings.

3. It is further contended by petitioner that I'r respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.20, Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated I l.06.19g4 framing certain policy guiderines to be adopted and fbllorved bv 2 KI, J w.P.No 1976a of201o 2nd respondent on the subject ofdisposal ofstray pieces ofland which are less than 100 Sq.yards in size other than footpaths and road margins, belonging to it, on payment of market value

4. Pursuant to the said G.O., petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents stating that he is ready to pay the market value and requesting them to allot the said land in his favour. Respondents have not considered the same. Therefore, he has filed a Writ Petition vlde W.P.No.21901 of

1994. Vide order dated 23.03.1995, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the said Writ Petition directing 2nd respondent to fix the market value of the said land. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred an intra-court appeal vide W.A.No.849 of 1995. The same was dismissed on 13.10.1995. Thereafter also, petitioner approached 2nd respondent with a request to fix the market value in terms of the order dated 23.03.1995 in Writ Petition No.21901 of 1994. Subsequently,

11.11.1996, 2'd respondent has issued a notice calling for the petitioner to ]l i I 3 KL. J W.P No i9768 ot20IO pay an amount of Rs.9,10,299l- within a period of on't: month for the extent of 47 Sq.yards of land held in his possession' In the said notice, 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that no negotiations rvould be accepted from him. Aggrieved by the said notice, petitioner has filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.2683 9 of 1996 contending that2"d respondent did not fix the market value and the said notice dated 11.11 1996 is contrary to the order dated 23.03.1995 in Writ Petition No.21901 ot'1994. Thereupon, vide otdet dated 29.()9.2008, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the said W.P.No.26839 of 1996. The conclusive portion of the said order dated 29.09.2008 reads as under: "l tlleretbre do not find any justifrcation in allowing the Housing Board to enhance the market value by 540u1, above Rs.10,000/- per Sq.yard. I do not also find any justification for the Housing Board to charge the encroachment fee fixed by them for the period beyond Nor ember, 1995. Therefore, subject to the payment of market value at the rate of Rs.10,0001 per sq. yard as determined by the Housing Board and together with the encroachment iee for the period between December. 1994 to November, 1995 at the rate of Rs.6267.37 per month and Rs.l50/- and Rs.50/- 4 KL- J w.P.No.1976a ot20lO \ towards preparation of the registration plans and conveyance charges respectively by the petitioner on or before 31.12.2008, the Housing Board is directed to alienate the land under occupation of the writ petitioner to him. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs."

5. It is the specific contention ofthe petitioner that though the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the respondents to calculate the amount including the market value, registration charges, conveyance charges etc., and inform the same to the petitioner, they have not informed the petitioner on or before 31 .12.2008. Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 30.12.2008 to 2nd respondent with a request to inform the amount to be paid by him so as to enable him to pay the said amount in compliance with the aforesaid order. On receipt of the said representation, vide Ietter dated 31.12.2008, 2nd respondent has informed the petitioner that the total cost of the said land is Rs.5,68,708.44 and as petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- pursuant to the interim order dated 30.01 .1997 in Writ Petition 5 KL, J v lrNo 19768 ol20 l0 No.26839 of 1996, balance amount to be paid 1S Rs.4,68,708.44, and thus, directed the petitioner to p'ay the said amount within one month from the date of the said letter.

6. It is also the specific contention of petitioner that vide Demand Draft bearing No.134063 dated29.01 .20C)1) drawn on State Bank of India, he has paid an amount of Rs.4,68,710/-. Even then, 2nd respondent is not executing a registered sale deed in his favour in respect ofthe subject property. Therefore, he has filed the present Writ Petition.

7. Vide order dated 11.08.2010, considering the fact that the right ol the petitioner to claim regularizil[ion under G.O,Ms.No.20 dated 11.06.1984 is crystallized and as the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.4,68,710/- in r:ompliance with the order dated 29.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Prarlesh while admining this Writ Petition, directed responde:nts not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 6 KL, J W P.No I9768 ot 201O petitioner, not to create third party interest and not to dispossess him from the subject properly. 8 Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent would contend that vide order dated 29.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount within one month i.e., on or before 31.12.2008, bul the petitioner failed to pay the same. Even in the order dated

02.12.2009 in Contempt Case SR No.4440 of 2009, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed the same. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for registration of the subject property.

9. As discussed supra, vide order dated 29.09.2008, this Court allowed Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996 holding that there is no justification in allowing the Housing Board to enhance the market value by 54o/o above Rs.10,000/- per sq.yard. Further, subject to the payment of market value @ Rs.10,000/- per Sq.yard as determined by the Housing i i 7 KL' J w.P r,lo L<'768 ol20 1O Board and together with encroachment fee for the period from December, 1994, to November,, 1995, @ Rs'6267'37 ps per month and Rs.l50/- & Rs'501 towards preparation of the registration plans and conveyance charges respectivel1 by the petitioner on or before 3t.12'2008, the Housing Board shall alienate the said land under occupation of the petitioner to him.

10. Thus, 2nd respondent has to inform the petitioner with regard to the amount to be paid by the petitioner including market value of the land, conveyance charges' registration charges etc., in terms of G.O'Ms'No'20 dated l1'06'1984 and in compliance with the order dated 29'09'2008 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996. But, he was silent' Further, petiticner has submitted a representation dated 30' 12'2008 requesting 2nd respondent to inform the amount to be paid by him under the aforesaid facts in compliance with the aforesaid order' Thereupon, vide letter dated' 3l'12'2008, 2nd respondent has informed the petitioner that he has to pay an anrount of 8 KL, J W-P-No-19766 ol20tO Rs.5,68,708.44 ps. but as he has already paid Rs'l'00'0001 pursuant to the interim order dated 30'01'1997' balance to be paid is Rs.4,68,708.44 ps. and he shall pay the same within one (1) month from the date of the said letter' failing which' action will be taken as per rules' It is not in dispute that petitioner has paid the said amount on 29'01'2009 vide Demand Draft No.134063 drawn on State Bank of India' Therefore, 2nd respondent cannot contend that petitioner has not paid the said amount within one month from the letter dated 3 I . I 2.200 g. vi de letter dated 3 I .12.200 8, 2nd respondent itself informed the petitioner that he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,68,708.44 ps' Accordingly, vide Demand Dtaft dated 29.01.2009, he has paid the said amount' Having received the said amount of Rs'4,68,708'44 ps'' now' 2nd respondent cannot contend that petitioner did not pay the amount within the aforesaid time limit' Therefore' the said contention is contrary to the order dated 29'09'2008 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996 and letter dated 31'122008 of 2nd respondent. 9 KL, J w.P.Nr 1976a of20l0

11. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing 2nd respondent to execute a registered salt: deed in favour of the petitioner with regard to the subject property within one (1) month from the date of receipt of colly of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- t-. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 'au, SE:CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary' Housing and Municipal Administration Department' ' s"Ir"tuiiit-euildrngs, Hro",l111?;n 2. The SecretarY, Telangana Board, Gruhakatpta cornplex, ; H:tH'fl'Ei f;ilffir.%^1ilif,ffi"""*^D URBAN ^,-, :BHyE|3,'J'JJBtSilt'."5$i,'Js?s[i*ff B,1511'lvo""ouoto"1 6. Two CD CoPies '* ifr HIGH COURT DATED:29 tO4t2O2S \<o (. l'eI i (. 1 0 JUr ?025 ! \, .,, tr -f. .*\. .{\, - * -a,r' -i!' \1"-\ -' -'' -\. ORDER WP.No.19768 of 2010 o(J t .t fl,i?is:,,I 3 3S#. wRrr P Efl fl o N fln- ;15 6 L)