Telangana High Court
WP/5750/2004 of B.Niranjan Prasad, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board rep., by its on 27 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 5750 of 2004 Between: B.Niranjan Prasad, s/o Sri B.Bhaskara Rao, r/o C-31, Ushodaya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 5750 of 2004
Between:
B.Niranjan Prasad, s/o Sri B.Bhaskara Rao, r/o C-31, Ushodaya Complex, Street No.19, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board rep., by its Vice Chairman, "Gruhakalpa", Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad-500 001.
2 The Vice Chairman, The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, "Gruhakalpa", Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad-500 001. "Gruhakalpa", Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad-500 001.
3 The Executive Engineer (Housing), Office of the Executive Engineer (Housing), South Division, A.P.Housing Board, "Gruha Kalpa", Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad-500 001.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue any writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of mandamusdeclaring the proceedings No.27/MIG/M.Ali/E12/EE(H)/03 dated 13-02-2004 of therespondents as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, and invalid for ignoring, neglectingand not considering my representations dated 1-8-2000, 26-11-2001, 27-10-2003and 12-01-2004, and thus discriminating me from the other allottees of HouseNos.22/MIG, 23/MIG, and 24/MIG who were directed by the respondents to payRs.425/- per square yard, while directing me to pay Rs.1700/- per sq.yard vide proceedings No.27/MIG/M.Ali/E12/EE(H)/03 dated 13-02-2004 and also direct therespondents to consider my case also on par with the allottees of HouseNos.22/MIG, 23/MIG and 24/MIG and register the House MIG/27 in my name Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.J.RAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.J.PRABHAKAR (SC FOR APHB)
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counselappearing for the respondents.
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of therespondents dated 13-02-2004 whereunder the petitioner was directed to pay a sumof Rs.1,26,446/- towards the cost of the excess land at the rate of Rs.1700/- persquare yard is arbitrary and illegal.
The petitioner states that he was allotted MIGH-27 vide sanction letter dated 28-03-1980 subject to the terms and conditions specified thereunder and thereafter as perthe no objection certificate granted by the 1[st] respondent and in terms of theapproved site plan, he constructed a compound wall around the plot allotted to him.It is further stated that as per the approved site plan the extent of the plot was shownas 374.39 square yards. However subsequently it was found that the plot consists ofexcess land of 74.39 square yards. The petitioner was willing to retain the excessland on payment of cost at the rate prevailing at the time of allotment andaccordingly having paid all the instalments under the hire purchase scheme herequested the 1[st] respondent to get the house registered including the excess landof 74.38 square yards. He also gave his consent to pay the extra cost for the excessland at the rate as applicable at the time of allotment. The 1[st] respondent havingreceived the representations of the petitioner dated 1-8-2000,26-11-2001, 27-10-2003 and 12-01-2004 kept quiet for a long time and strangely passed the impugnedorder dated 13-02-2004 directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,26,446/- towards cost ofexcess land at the rate of Rs.1700/- per square yard.
The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have accepted the paymentin respect of the excess land at the rate of Rs.425/- per square yard from some of thesimilarly situated allottees and therefore the impugned order directing the petitionerto pay a sum of Rs.1700/- per square yard is arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory.Hence, the writ petition.
Conclusion
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is alleged that thepetitioner encroached into the adjacent vacant land. So far as the cost of the saidexcess is concerned it is stated that the then Vice Chairman having regard to the factthat the prevailing market value was Rs.2500/- to Rs.3000/- per square yard, fixedthe cost at Rs.1700/- per square yard. Accordingly the petitioner was directed to paythe said amount under the impugned proceedings. However the counter affidavit issilent as to the plea of the petitioner that the respondents have accepted a sum ofRs.425/- only per square yard in respect of some other similarly situated allottees.More over nothing has been placed before this Court to show that therepresentations made by the petitioner were taken into consideration before passingthe impugned order.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the matterrequires re-consideration on the basis of the representations made by the petitionerand particularly taking into consideration the specific plea of the petitioner that the1[st] respondent has collected only Rs.425/- from similarly situated allottees towardsthe costs of excess land.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set asideand the respondents are directed to re-consider the request of the petitioner and topass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The petitioner is granted liberty tomake a fresh representation together with supporting material if any, within a periodof 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such representation being made,the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordancewith law within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. However, it is made clear that thisCourt has not expressed any opinion with regard to the claim of the petitioner withregard to the price of the excess land and it is open to the respondents to passappropriate orders in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions. No costs.
____________
27-12-2004
Note:
Furnish CC by one week
(B/o)
rkk
The Rule nisi has been made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this, Monday, theTwenty Seventh day of December, Two thousand and four.
To
1 The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board rep., by its Vice Chairman, "Gruhakalpa", Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad-500 001.
2 The Vice Chairman, The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, "Gruhakalpa", Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad-500 001. "Gruhakalpa", Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad-500 001.
3 The Executive Engineer (Housing), Office of the Executive Engineer (Housing), South Division, A.P.Housing Board, "Gruha Kalpa", Mukharamjahi Road, Hyderabad-500 001.
4. Two CD copies. copies.