WP/22337/2004 of G. Jagannath, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 December 2007

ORDER:

This is a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking adirection to call for the records pertaining to and connected withG.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue (Endowments.II) Department, dated 31-07-2004 from the respondents and quash the same by declaringit as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice.

The petitioners alleged that they are the residents ofZaheerabad. An extent of Ac.10.00 gts. situated in Sy.No.305belonging to Leprosy Investigation and Treatment Centre,Zaheerabad, was proposed to be sold for establishment ofViswamanava Dharma Prachara Sangham other than by way ofpublic auction on payment of market value as fixed by theGovernment. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue(Endowments.II) Department, dated 31-07-2004. The AssistantCommissioner, Medak, has requested to accord permission for thesale of the above land to Sri Dattagiri Maharaj Ashramam, Bardipur,Medak District, at the market value of Rs.2,25,000/- (25% morethan the market value of Rs.1,80,000/- given by Mandal RevenueOfficer) per acre duly issuing a notification calling for the objectionsand suggestions and if no objections are received within thestipulated time. The Commissioner, Endowments, has alsomentioned that Maharaj Sri Vyragya Shikhamani AvadhuthagiriMaharaj has also given consent and willingness to pay the amountof the market value of the land in question.

In view of the above facts, the Commissioner, EndowmentsDepartment, has requested the Government to re-examine thematter and issue orders permitting to sell the land in question infavour of Dattagiri Maharaj Ashramam, Bardipur, Medak District,other than by public auction as suggested by the Assistant Commissioner.

The Government after careful examination issued the saidGO permitting to alienate the property at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/-per acre duly issuing a notification after calling for the objections, ifany, and after fulfilling certain conditions.

The petitioners in pursuance of the calling for objectionssubmitted a representation on 26-09-2003 to the respondents 2, 3and 4 requesting to allot the said land in their favour by offering topay 20% more than the market value fixed by the Sub-Registrar andMandal Revenue Officer for running educational institutions. Duringthe pendency of the said representations, the petitioners learnt thatthe first respondent has issued an order dated 31-07-2004 confirming the sale of the land in question to VyragyaShikhamani Avadhuthagiri Maharaj on payment of Rs.2,25,000/-which is 25% more than the market value without calling thepetitioners for any negotiations. The petitioners further contendedthat they offered to pay 20% more than the market value whereasVyragya Shikhamani Sri Avadhuthagiri Maharaj offered to pay onlythe market value towards the same. Though the petitioners quotedhigher rate their representations were neglected and confirmed thesale in favour of Vyragya Shikhamani. The respondents have notcalled for any negotiations and have confirmed the sale behind theirback with an observation that Vyragya Shikhamani Sri Avadhuthagiri Maharaj expressed to pay 25% more than the market value. Thesaid rate was confirmed without giving the petitioners properopportunity to participate in the negotiations.

The respondents have not filed any counter. Perused therecord.

Conclusion

As seen from the record, it is noticed that the petitioners haveoffered only 20% more than the market value towards the saleconsideration whereas Vyragya Shikhamani Sri AvadhuthagiriMaharaj has offered 25% more than the market value, therefore, itcannot be said that the respondents have accepted the lesser valuethan the value offered by the petitioners. When an offer was madethe petitioners ought to have quoted more value than the valueoffered by Avadhuthagiri Maharaj, but they quoted only 20% morethan the market value. If the respondents feel that theAvadhuthagiri Maharaj has offered more amount, they are at libertyto accept the offer without any further negotiations and theconfirmation of the sale in favour of Avadhuthagiri Maharaj is onlyafter following the procedure prescribed under the Rules and thequestion of accepting the value offered by Avadhuthagiri Maharajbehind the back of the petitioners does not arise. There is noviolation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were alsogiven an opportunity by way of public notice to offer their rate forpurchase of the land.

In the light of the above circumstances, I do not find anyillegality or arbitrariness in the order passed by the respondents andI do not find any merits in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as tocosts.

__________________27[th] December, 2007

SKM