A. Ram Mohan Yadav v. A.P. Housing Board

O R D E R The petitioner herein claims to be in possession of 70 square yards of land situated adjacent to HIG block-12, near Sundaraiah Park, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. It is not in dispute that the said land belongs to the 1st respondent-A.P. Housing Board. Stating that the petitioner has been in occupation of the said land from the year 1991 and has been running a tea stall apart from constructing a small house for his residence, the petitioner made an application requesting the 1st respondent to regularize his occupation and to allot the said land of 70 square yards in his favour expressing his willingness to pay the market value in terms of G.O.Ms.No.20, deated.11-06-1984. Alleging that the 1st respondent failed to consider his request, the petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.29346 of 1997. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated.19-11- 1997 with a direction to the 1st respondent to allot and regularize the occupation of the land in possession of the petitioner from the date of his encroachment provided the petitioner pays the market value of the site in terms of G.O.Ms.No.20, dated.11-06-1984. Such order was directed to be made within two weeks. In the meanwhi l e, status quo was directed to be maintained with regard to possession. The petitioner states that pursuant to the order in W.P.No.29346 of 1997, though he made several representations requesting the 1st respondent to take necessary steps in terms of the order of this Court, the respondents failed to respond. In spite of the same, the petitioner remitted a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- on 29- 07-2002 by way of a cheque. Though the said cheque was received by the respondents, no further action was taken. In the circumstances the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated.18- 09-2007 calling upon the respondents to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was orally informed by the office of the 2 nd respondent that a certificate of sale was already issued favour of 3rd respondent in respect of the land in question. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the certificate of sale dated.25-01- 2007 executed infavour of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary and illegal apart from being contrary to G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.11-06- 1984 as well as the order of this Court in W.P.No.29346 of 1997, dated.19-11-1997. It is contended by the petitioner that since the 3rd respondent is not residing in the HIG flats at Baghlingampally, he is not eligible for allotment of the land in question. At any rate, the impugned sale infavour of the 3rd respondent without publishing any advertisement as required under the A.P. Housing Board Act and the Regulations made thereunder, is arbitrary and illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1 st and 2nd respondents stating that the petitioner has never been in possession of the land in question. It is explained that the said fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court since W.P.No.29346 of 1997 was disposed of at the stage of admission. It is further stated that under the guise of the order in W.P.No.29346 of 1997 the petitioner attempted to start construction of a compound wall around the land in question on 17-01-1999. In the circumstances the Executive Engineer, Housing, South Division of the A.P. Housing Board gave a written complaint to the S.H.O, Chikkadpalli and thereupon the work was stopped with the help of the police. Subsequently, the petitioner made a representation dated.27-01-1999 stating that he was ready to pay the market value of the land in question in terms of G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.11-06-1984 and requesting the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to allot the said land in his favour. By that time since G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.11-06-1984 was already superceded vide G.O.Ms.No.38, dated.30-05-1997, the request of the petitioner was considered as per G.O.Ms.No.38 dated.30-05-1997 and it was found that the petitioner’s request for allotment of land cannot be granted. It is stated that the land in question which is having commercial value has to be sold by way of auction and moreover the petitioner who is not an adjacent house owner is not eligible for allotment of the land in question as per G.O.Ms.No.38 dated.30-05-1997. As a matter of fact similar request made by one K.Rajitha for allotment of the very same land for setting up a STD Booth was also rejected on the same grounds. Though there was no allotment in favour of the petitioner, he remitted a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- by way of a cheque of his own, which was not encashed by the respondents. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent by letter dated.16-04-2005 offered to purchase the land in question @Rs.10,000/- per square yard. He also deposited Rs.68,000/- towards EMD. Accordingly a tender notice was published in the local daily as per G.O.Ms.No.38, dated.30-05-2007 inviting bids above the bid of the 3rd respondent. The notice was also kept in the website of the A.P. Housing Board. Since no higher bid was received, the 1st respondent-Board vide its resolution dated.05- 12-2006 resolved to accept the offer of the 3rd respondent @ Rs.10,000/- per square yard. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent paid the entire balance sale price and registered certificate of sale dated.25-01-2007 was executed in his favour. The possession of the land was also handed over to him on 06-02-2007. Thus it is contended that the allegation made by the petitioner that the sale infavour of the 3rd respondent was vitiated by fraud and collusion is false and without any basis. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent on the same lines stating that he is put in possession of the land in question pursuant to the sale certificate dated.25-01-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and since then he has been continuing in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Though the writ petitioner filed an affidavit in reply, nothing could be placed before this Court to substantiate his possession as pleaded in the writ petition. As could be seen from the material on record, initially G.O.Ms.No.20, dated.11-06-1984 was issued by the Government prescribing certain procedure with regard to disposal of stray pieces belonging to the 1st respondent- Corporation in twin cities. However, subsequently G.O.Ms.No.20 dated.11-06-1984 was canncelled and revised orders were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.38 dated.30-05-2007 prescribing the procedure with regard to disposal of the properties of the A.P. Housing Board in the entire State. As per G.O.Ms.No.38, dated.30-05-1997 sale of stray pieces of land less than 100 square yards, other than foot paths and roads, is permissible to adjacent house owners on current market value subject to the condition that No Objection Certificate is obtained concerned Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Local bodies. It is also clear that as per G.O.Ms.No.38, sale of such stray pieces of land less than 100 square yards can be made without public auction in case of residential areas. Admittedly, the land in question is less than 100 square yards. Hence sale in favour of the 3rd respondent cannot be held to be illegal. Though the petitioner claimed that he is in possession, as expressed above the same could not be substantiated before this Court. The petitioner’s request for allotment was considered in compliance with the order of this Court in W.P.No.29346 of 1997, and he was found ineligible for allotment on payment of market value. Hence the rejection of the petitioner’s claim cannot be found fault with. It is also relevant to note that insptie of the wide publicity given in the local daily as well as the website of the Corporation, the petitioner did not choose to participate and there was no other bid over and above the price quoted by the 3rd respondent @ Rs.10,000/- per square yard. Viewed from any angle, the impugned action of the respondents either in not accepting the petitioner’s claim for allotment of the land or in selling the subject land to the 3rd respondent cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, no order as to costs. 25th September,2008 *T SNR _________ G.ROHINI,J