WP/19790/2006 of K.Madhava Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Housing (HB.II) on 30 December 2008

1. AIR 1990 AP 331

2. AIR 1979 SC 621

3. (1993) 1 SCC 71

4. (1984) 3 All ER 935 (H L)

5. (1985) 2 All ER 327

6. (1979) 4 SCC 602

7. (2003) 5 SCC 437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENTTHE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU

Writ Petition Nos.8048 of 2001 &19790, 19795 and 22657 of 2006

Between:

The Housing Board Employees, IV Phase,

Plot Allottes Welfare Association, rep. by its President Ravula Chalapathi Reddy, S/o Venkata Narasimha Redy, Aged 42 years, Assistant Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa Mozam Jahi Road, HYDERABAD

..... PETITIONER

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

2. The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Mozamjahi Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Executive Engineer, Western Division, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad. ..Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly writ of Mandamusdirecting the respondents to register the plots in Sy.No.964 and 1009 of-Kukatpally village phaseIV lay out plan prepared for A.P.H.B.Employees’ Housing Scheme in the name of the individual members ofthe petitioner association in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2 Housing----Department Dated 10011991 and as allotted by the Board on 12051991 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court maydeem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL

ADMINISTRATION

Between:

1 K.Madhava Reddy, s/o K.Lakshmi Kanth Reddy, r/o 16-1-483/14, Kranthi Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

2 M.Rama Koteswara Rao, s/o late M.Umamaheswara Rao, r/o 16/9, VI Phase, KPHB Kukatpally, Hyderabad...... PETITIONERS r/o 16/9, VI Phase, KPHB Kukatpally, Hyderabad...... PETITIONERS

AND

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Housing (HB.II) Department,rep., by itsrep., by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2 The A.P.Housing Board, rep., by its Vice Chairman, Gruhakalpa, Mukaramjahi Road, Hyderabad. Mukaramjahi Road, Hyderabad.

3 The Executive Engineer (Housing), Western Region, A.P.Housing Board, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in thenature of writ of mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.32 Housing (HB.II)--Department, dt.1292006 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal,arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and without jurisdictionand consequently direct the respondents to register the Plot No.110 LIGand Plot No.162 LIG admeasuring 200 sq.yards each in Sy.No.1009 and964 of Kukatpally in favour of the petitioners respectively, and to passsuchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and properin the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANICounsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOUSINGWRIT PETITION NO : 19795 of 2006

Between:The Housing Board Employees IV Phase Plot Allottees WelfareAssociation, Rep. by its President Aged 46 yrs, Occ: Asst. Engineer APHB, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Market, Hyderabad.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government Housing (HB.II) Department, 2 The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board , Gruhakalpa, M.J. Market, Hyderabad, Commissioner.

3 The Executive Engineer, Western Division, A.P. Housing Board,Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or-direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No. 32 Housing (HB.II) Department dt. 12-92006 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent toregister plots in Sy.no. 964 and 1009 of Kukatpally Village, Phase IVLayout plan prepared for APHB Employees Housing Scheme in the nameof individual members of the petitioner association in pursuance of theG.O.Ms.No. 2 Housing Department dt. 10-1-1991 and allotted by the--'Board on 1251991 and pass such other or further orders as the HonbleCourt feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDYCounsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOUSINGAND

Between:

1 P.Srinivasulu Naidu, S/o. Munuswami Naidu, A.P. Housing board, R/o.flat No.S2, Kalyani Residency, near Vasanth Emerld, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

2 Sri Vangala Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Joji Reddy, A.P. Housing Board, R/o. Plot No.504, Block D, Siddamsetti Apartments, Jawahar Nagar, Road No.5, Near RTC Xroads, Hyderabad-20.

3 Solipuram Banuprakash Reddy, S/o. Sudershan Reddy, Plot No.206, S.V. Classic Apartments, Chaitanyapuri Colony, DilsukhNagar, Hyderabad.

..... PETITIONERS

AND

1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Prl., Secy-housing, ( HB.II)Department, Secretarait, Hyderabad.

2 The A.P. Housing board, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Market, Nampally,Hyderabd, rep.

by its Vice Chairman-cum-Housing Commissioner.

3 The Executive Engineer ( Western Division), A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Market, Nampally, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that inthe circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly,one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the G.O.Ms.No.32,Housing ( H.B.II) Department, dt. 12.9.2006 in canceling the allotment ofhouse plots to the Petitioners herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust,discriminatory, in violation of principles of natural justice, apart from beingwithout jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same with a furtherdirection to the Respondents herein to register the plots in our names andpass.

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.R.PRABHAKAR

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOUSING

The Court made the following :

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULUW.P.Nos. 8048 of 2001 &19790, 19795 and 22657 of 2006

COMMON ORDER:

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India praying to direct the respondents to register the plots inSy.Nos.964 and 1009 of Kukatpally village in Phase-IV of the lay out plan prepared for A.P.H.B. Employees HousingScheme in the individual names of the Housing Board Employees inpursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2, Housing Department, dated 10-01-1991 andfor cancellation of the allotment of flats in G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006.

2. All the writ petitions are filed seeking the same relief againstthe same respondents, therefore, they are clubbed and heard togetherand this common order is passed.

3. The averments of the Affidavits filed in support of the writpetitions are briefly as under:

The petitioners are the members of the A.P. Housing BoardEmployees Phase-IV plot allottees Welfare Association represented by itsPresident, Hyderabad. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition,the petitioners contended that the said Association was registered underthe Andhra Pradesh Public Registered Societies Act, 1950 withregistered No.4567 of 2000. The members of the Association are theemployees of the A.P. Housing Board and they are allotted plots inphase-IV of the lay out at Kukatpally. In the year 1988, NGOs union of theA.P. Housing Board made a representation to the Board requesting forallotment of developed plots on the same analogy as was allotted to theBoard employees on earlier occasions. The Board in its meeting, dated29-07-1998 resolved to recommend to the Government to accordpermission to allot 115 MIG, 181 LIG and 24 EWS plots to 320 employeesin an extent of 13 acres of land situated at Kukatpally @ Rs.45/- persquare yard including the cost of the land and development charges subject to the condition that no employee shall sell away the land and ifthere is any violation the land will be resumed by the Government. TheGovernment was pleased to consider the request of the Board andaccorded permission to allot plots to 320 employees on the southern sideof phase IV of Kukatpally @ 45/- per square yard in G.O.Ms.No.2,Housing Department, dated

10-01-1991. Accordingly, the individual plots were allotted to all the 320 members on 12-05-1991 and in CircularNo.19407/EM.4/RHE:WD/88, dated 09-09-1991 directed the RegionalEngineers and other drawing and disbursement officers to recover thecost of the plots and its development charges at Rs.300/- per month perMIG and Rs.265/- per LIG and Rs.1500/- per EWS respectively in 30monthly instalments. The cost and development charges are recoveredfrom all the allottees by 1994. The Housing Board, while sendingproposals to the Government, indicated plot areas of MIG on 233 squareyards, LIG 200 square yards and EWS at 111 square yards, which wasworked out to 13 acres of lay out plan approved by the Vice-Chairmanand Housing Commissioner on 31-03-1989. The actual area covered bythe plots is worked out to 13.66 acres excluding the road, parks playgrounds etc. and as such the matter was placed before the Board in its423[rd] meeting held on 29-06-1992 and the Board has resolved toapproach the Government for necessary amendment to G.O.Ms.No.2,dated 10-01-1991. As the land is under the control of the Board, theSecretary to the Government directed Vice Chairman and HousingCommissioner to take action by himself. Thereafter, the Board in its 449[th]meeting held on 24-08-1995 resolved to allot Ac.26.541 of land to theemployees of the Board at Rs.116/- per square yard against Rs.45/- whichwas approved earlier and the enhanced amount is also recovered fromthe employees. The Housing Board has to get the plots registered in thename of allottees. At this stage, the first respondent interfered with thedecision of the Board and directed the Board not to register any plots inPhase-IV in favour of the A.P.H.B. Employees in terms of BoardResolution in 463 and 464 meetings till the Government gives a clear

direction. Basing on such direction, the second respondent instructed thethird respondent not to take further action to get the plots registered in thename of the allottees pending further orders in the matter. The PrincipalSecretary to Government, without considering that the allotment wasmade in the year 1991, raised an objection on the ground that the presentmarket value is at Rs.3,000/- per square yard, whereas the allotment wasmade at Rs.116/- per square yard. It was also mentioned that the landallotted was not suitable even for residential purpose. When thesurrounding areas are developed after a gap of more than 10 years, theprevailing rate is found to be more and that cannot be a ground to stopregistration when the entire sale consideration is collected by the Board.There is no dispute with regard to eligibility of the allottees and theGovernment itself has accorded permission in G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991 for allotment of plots after considering the representation and aftercollecting the sale consideration. The allottees are poor employees andthey have contributed their hard earned money with a fond hope of gettinga plot, which would be an asset to them. The first respondent, havingaccorded permission through G.O.Ms.No.2, is estopped from raising anyobjection for registration of the plots and the direction not to register plotstill the Government takes a clear decision in the issue is illegal andarbitrary. The Housing Board is not a profit making organization. Itcannot do business in selling plots at higher rates. The Governmenthaving formulated a scheme contemplated under Regulation 21 of theA.P. Housing Board Act to allot plots to the employees of the Board andhaving issued G.O.Ms.No.2 to that effect, it is not open to the firstrespondent to interfere with the scheme detriment to the interests of theemployees. Similar schemes were approved by the Government in theyears 1979 and 1983 and all the employees, who were working andeligible as on the respective dates, were allotted. The present petitionersare some of the employees left over under the old schemes and joined inthe service of the Board later. The petitioners, therefore, approached thisCourt through these writ petitions requesting for the reliefs as prayed for.

4. In the subsequent writ petitions filed in 2006, it is contended

4. In the subsequent writ petitions filed in 2006, it is contended that subsequent to the direction by the first respondent not to register theplots in favour of the individual employees, the Government constituted acabinet sub committee to examine the issue and after the report of the subcommittee, appropriate orders will be issued in the matter. Afterexamining the issue, the cabinet Committee submitted a report favouringallotment of house sites to the Housing Board employees. The subcommittee report was placed before the cabinet for approval on 01-04-2005 and the cabinet approved the recommendations of the subcommittee. While so, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 canceling the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.2. It was furthermentioned in G.O.Ms.No.32 that the Government permits the ViceChairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board to constructand allot individual flats to the 320 employees of the Board who wereearlier allotted individual plots. It is further mentioned that the allotmentwill be at the current rate of construction without charging the land costand also interest @ 20 % per annum will be paid by the A.P. HousingBoard on the amount paid by the employees initially towards land costand approval of the Housing Board shall be obtained by the ViceChairman. The above G.O. issued by the first respondent is arbitrary,illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. G.O.Ms.No.2has been acted upon and vested right has been given in favour of themembers of the society. When once the G.O. has been accepted, it is notopen to the first respondent to cancel the same at this length of time. Nonotice has been issued and no opportunity has been given to themembers before passing the impugned order. The power to cancel theG.O., when there is no allegation of any misrepresentation on the part ofthe employees, has not been conferred on the first respondent. Theaction of the first respondent in cancelling the earlier G.O. is arbitrary andin violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Board hasfollowed the parameters as laid down in the Act and has fixed the marketvalue by keeping in view the then prevailing rates. The Board is theultimate authority to fix the market value and the Government havingdelegated the power to the Board to take decision in the matter through the letter, dated 28-06-1994, it is not open to the first respondent to passthe impugned order after a decision has been taken by the Board. Hadthe decision been taken by the first respondent in the year 1990 itself, themembers would have purchased other plots or would have applied in theopen category for allotment of plots. The amount that is now being offeredto the members of the petitioner-association cannot be a justcompensation as it has no relevancy to the present market value of theproperty, therefore, prayed for the reliefs as mentioned above.

5. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit with the followingaverments in brief:

The petitioners must prove the allegations in the writ petitions. TheA.P. Housing Board conducted a demand survey among the employeeswho were appointed on or before 31-12-1984. In response to a Circularissued, 320 applications were received from employees in differentcategories. The A.P. Housing Board through the Resolution, dated 29-07-1988 resolved to recommend to the Government to accord permission forallotment of 320 sites. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991 according permission as a special case for allotment of houseplots to 320 employees of the Housing Board in an extent of 13 acres withcertain conditions. After receipt of the Government Orders, the drawal ofthe land was conducted and the allotment proceedings were issued to theemployees to pay cost of the land and development charges @ Rs.45/-per square yard. As per the request of the NGOs union, the amount wascollected in 30 monthly instalments from the salaries of the employeescommencing from August, 1991. While submitting the proposals to theGovernment, the extent of allotted area was shown as 13 acres, whereasthe total area in the layout measured at 26.541 cents including the areacovered by the roads, parks, playgrounds etc., therefore, the matter wasplaced before the Board for consideration for allotment of 26.541 acres. The Board in its 423[rd] meeting held on 29-06-1992 passed a Resolutionto approach the Government for necessary amendment to the G.O. bysubstituting 26.541 acres in the place of 13 acres. The Government,through its letter, dated 28-06-1994 informed that the matter need not come to the Government. The Vice Chairman of the Housing Board maytake necessary action to decide at his level as the proposed land is underthe control of the Board. After receipt of the orders from the Government,the matter was placed before the Board and the Board in its 449[th] meetingheld on 24-08-1995 resolved to amend the G.O. and proposed to collectthe amount @ 116/- per square yard towards cost of the land includingdevelopment charges. But, the Resolution was not communicated to theemployees and the difference of amount was not collected since the layout was under the process of approval. When the minutes of the Boardare communicated, the Principal Secretary to the Housing Board directedthe Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner not to register the plots inPhase-IV in favour of the Housing Board employees in terms of the BoardResolution till the Government issued clarification and takes a cleardecision on the issue. The Government in D.O. letter informed the ViceChairman that the plots at Kukatpally were sold at Rs.80/- per square yardin the year 1983-84 and it was decided by the Board to sell the land atRs.116/- per square yard in 2001 when the land auctioned by the HousingBoard is fetching more than Rs.3000/- per square yard, therefore, it is notappropriate to sell away A.P. Housing Board lands at throw away prices.The matter has been examined by the Government and it is tentativelydecided to constitute a cabinet sub committee to examine the issue andappropriate orders will be issued after taking a decision in the matter.

6. The counter filed by the respondents 2 and 3 is also on thesimilar lines and further pleaded that as the matter is under the activeconsideration of the Government, the writ petitions are premature andmisconceived.

7. By taking into consideration the subsequent developmentsand filing of writ petitions in 2006 on fresh cause of action, the firstrespondent filed counter by contending that the cabinet sub committeerecommended that the land already allotted to the employees of theHousing Board may be registered @ Rs.204/- per square yard includingthe development charges as approved by the A.P. Housing Board subjectto the condition that if any increase in developmental charge over and above Rs.204/- per square yard arises at the time of execution, it is to beborne by the employees themselves. The Council of Ministers hasapproved the recommendations of the cabinet sub committee, through theResolution, dated 01-04-2005 by directing that the conditions stipulated inG.O.Ms.No.244, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 28-02-2005is applicable to the case of Housing Board employees also. AfterResolution of the cabinet sub committee, the Government asked the ViceChairman to submit necessary proposals incorporating the conditions asper G.O.Ms.No.244 and the Vice Chairman submitted the same in May,2005. While the matter stood thus, the Vice Chairman and HousingCommissioner has submitted a revised proposal in December, 2005 witha request to cancel all the allotments and to provide houses in the proposed Hydernagar scheme for the following reasons:

1. Only 103 people have paid the full amount asked for and 217people have not paid the full amount asked for;people have not paid the full amount asked for;

2. Whereas the G.O. referred to in the cabinet decision relates topayment of market value as per the basic value, what has beencollected from these employees are in the nature of only afraction of market value such as Rs.5/- against market value ofRs.180/-;payment of market value as per the basic value, what has beencollected from these employees are in the nature of only afraction of market value such as Rs.5/- against market value ofRs.180/-;

3. Several people have bought by way of either concessionalallotment of outright purchase flats.allotment of outright purchase flats.

4. Several people have retired in the meantime and died andsome have been removed from the service;some have been removed from the service;

5. To give semblance of fairness, we have sent proposals forAdministering the scheme. But it appears that it is quite difficultto administer.Administering the scheme. But it appears that it is quite difficultto administer.

8. The Government examined the proposals of the ViceChairman-cum-Housing Commissioner and placed before the Council ofMinisters for approval. The Council of Ministers approved the revisedproposal on 01-04-2005 by observing that the revised proposal submittedby the second respondent is laudable and the same has been examinedand approved by the Government with reference to various aspects byissuing G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006. There is no discrimination orviolation of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the first respondentrequested to dismiss the writ petition.

9. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter by making theaverments similar to the counter filed by the first respondent and furtherpleading that it is important to know that 26 acres of land was nevercleared by the Government and it required the approval of theGovernment before any kind of allotment could be done and the original ismodified and hence, the original approval of the Government completelystood nullified in the background of the revised proposal as well asGovernment order not to register the plots. The Government, after duedeliberations, thought it prudent to take it to the cabinet for the withdrawalof the scheme without jeopardising the interests of the employees bygiving 20% interest on the amount paid by them and also by giving plotsat the cost of construction only without charging for the land cost. On aletter addressed by the Housing Board on 16-10-2000 for payment of thedifference amount, only 60 members paid the amount. It is incorrect tostate that the second respondent stopped receiving the amount on theground that the first respondent gave direction not to register the plots infavour of the allottees. The proposal for allotment of lands in favour of theemployees is contrary to the provisions of A.P. Housing Board Act and theemployees have no right for allotment of any such land from the Board.Since the Housing Board took some steps for allotment of plots, it felt thatthe concerned employees should not be deprived of the enjoyment of thehouse property and it is with this avowed intention and object that theHousing Board proposed to make alternative arrangements for itsemployees and decided to charge the construction cost only withoutcharging any cost for the land. The interest of the parties would be betterserved by implementing G.O.Ms.No.32 and the construction would betaken up on a time bound framework, therefore, requested to dismiss thewrit petition.

10. The Government made the Applicants to believe that the itwill allot the land and the Housing Board will register the plots in theirnames by collecting the amount fixed by the Government in 30instalments and the amount was also recovered by way of instalments,therefore, there was legitimate expectation by the petitioners. The Housing Board as well as the Government made a promise by issuingG.Os and by collecting money towards the cost of the plots, therefore, thedoctrine of promissory estoppel will come into operation and theGovernment is estopped from taking back the promise made by it. Without any notice about the change of the scheme, issuingG.O.Ms.No.32 is against the principles of natural justice and arbitrarywhich is quite contrary to the promise made by the Government and theearlier orders issued by the Government, therefore, G.O.Ms.No.32 is liableto be set aside and the respondents shall be directed to register the plotsin the names of the respective applicants according to their category bycollecting the difference of development charges, if any, due from any ofthe allottees.

11. The learned Advocate General representing the firstrespondent submitted that the prayer in the writ petition is in the form ofspecific relief and the writ cannot be maintained and the remedy to thepetitioners is in a civil Court, but not in a writ Court. He further submittedthat the action of the Government as well as the Housing Board is not inconsonance with the Act and the Rules, therefore, the question of legalityof the action of the respondent does not arise. The Government issued theG.O. on the recommendation made by the Housing Board by taking intoconsideration the value of the land, the availability of the land, the extraland required for the purpose of allotment of house sites to the applicantsetc., therefore, the Government took a policy decision that it would beappropriate if the flats are constructed to the applicants at the actual costwithout charging anything for the land on which the plots are going to beconstructed and the Government have also decided to refund the amountpaid by the respective members with 20% interest per annum or it canalso be adjusted towards part of the cost of the plots that are going to beconstructed, therefore, in either way, the petitioners were not put to lossand the Government have power to change its policy from time to time toextend the benefit to the employees. He further submitted that since theemployees have no statutory right for allotment of house plots, theircontention that they are discriminated while allotting plots to the similarly placed employees on the previous occasions, therefore, it amounts toviolation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not tenable. Hereferred to certain provisions of the Housing Board Act and submitted thatthe action of the Government is within its domain and there is no illegalityin issuing G.O.Ms.No.32, therefore, the writ petitions are liable to bedismissed.

12. In the light of the contentions raised by both parties, the following are the point for consideration by this Court:

1. Whether the prayer in the writ petition is in the form of specific reliefand whether the writ petition is not maintainable under law?and whether the writ petition is not maintainable under law?

2. Whether the action of the respondents in changing the scheme forallotment of house sites amounts to promissory estoppel? andwhether the action of the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.32,dated 12-09-2006 is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside? allotment of house sites amounts to promissory estoppel? andwhether the action of the Government in issuing G.O.Ms.No.32,dated 12-09-2006 is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside? 3.Whether the Government is estopped from changing its schemeafter making the applicants to believe that they get the lands in viewof the completion of the formalities except the registration of theland?;after making the applicants to believe that they get the lands in viewof the completion of the formalities except the registration of theland?; POINT NOS.1 TO 3:

POINT NOS.1 TO 3:

13. It is an undisputed fact that on the request of A.P. HousingBoard, the Government have accorded permission for allotment of 115MIG, 181 LIG and 24 EWS plots to 320 employees of the A.P. HousingBoard vide G.O.Ms.No.2, Housing Department, dated 10-01-1991 as aspecial case. It is also an undisputed fact that the HousingCommissioner, Hyderabad has submitted a proposal to the Governmentto permit the Board for registration of 320 plots in Phase-IV of Kukatpallyto its employees at the rate of Rs.204/- per square yard which includesdevelopment charges and land rate @ Rs.188/- and Rs.16/- respectivelysubject to the condition that the over and above the development charges,if any, to be borne by the employees themselves, if worked out at a laterdate at the time of execution of the development work. It is also anundisputed fact that a cabinet sub committee was constituted by theGovernment to examine the issue and to submit a report. The Cabinetsub committee recommended that the land already allotted to theemployees may be registered @ Rs.204/- per square yard including developmental charges as approved by the Housing Board subject to thepayment of development charges in case of increase. The Council ofMinisters approved the report of the sub committee on 01-04-2005 forregistration of 320 plots allotted to the employees of A.P. Housing Boardsubject to the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.244, Revenue(Assignment-I) Department, dated 28-02-2005. It is also an undisputedfact that after the cabinet Resolution, the Government have asked theVice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, tosubmit necessary proposals incorporating the conditions as perG.O.Ms.No.244, dated 28-02-2005 and the same was submitted by theHousing Commissioner in May, 2005. It is also an undisputed fact thatafter receipt of the orders of the Government, the process of drawal of thelots, collection of land cost and development cost was also done. TheGovernment, through the Resolution, dated 24-08-1995 have approvedthe allotment of 320 plots to A.P. Housing Board Employees videG.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991 and authorized the Vice Chairman andHousing Commissioner to take action to decide the extent of landrequired. The matter was brought to the notice of the Board forconsideration and the matter was discussed, and the Board resolved toallot 26.541 acres of land under phase-IV to A.P. Housing BoardEmployees (13.66 acres plotted area + 12.881 acres for roads, openspace and community purpose) @ 116/- per square yard towardsdevelopment. The Housing Board through the Resolution in its 463[rd]meeting, dated 29-11-2000 resolved to register the plots in favour of theemployees @ 116/- per square yard after full payment of difference of costprovided that the allottee to give an undertaking agreeing for constructionof houses by the Board. While the matter stood thus, the Vice Chairmanand Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board have submitted therevised proposal during December, 2005 with request to cancel all theallotments and to provide houses at concessional rate without chargingfor the land value in the proposed Hydernagar scheme for the followingreasons:

1. Only 103 people have paid the full amount asked for and 217

people have not paid the full amount asked for;

2. Whereas the G.O. referred to in the cabinet decision relates thepayment of market value as per the basic value, what has beencollected from these employees are in the nature of only a fraction ofmarket value such as Rs.5/- against market value of Rs.180/-;payment of market value as per the basic value, what has beencollected from these employees are in the nature of only a fraction ofmarket value such as Rs.5/- against market value of Rs.180/-;

3. Several people have bought by way of either concessionalallotment of outright purchase flats.allotment of outright purchase flats.

4. Several people have retired in the meantime and dead and somehave been removed from the service;have been removed from the service;

5. To give semblance of fairness, we have sent proposals foradministering the scheme. But it appears that it is quite difficult toadminister.administering the scheme. But it appears that it is quite difficult toadminister.

14. He also recommended that the charges should be based onthe cost of construction only to the 103 people and also to adjust theircontribution with interest @ 20% per annum from the time of payment ofthe money. Similar offer was also recommended to give to others on thesame price. The revised proposal was placed before the Council ofMinisters for approval and the Council of Ministers have approved therevised proposal through the Resolution, dated 08-09-2006 withmodification to the earlier Resolution No.110 of 2005, dated 01-04-2005. The Government felt that the revised proposal submitted by the secondrespondent is a laudable one and the same has been examined by theGovernment with reference to various aspects and approved the same byissuing G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006. In G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991, it was mentioned by the Government that after considering therequest of the Housing Board to allot plots to 320 employees on par withthe allotment made to the employees previously, accorded permission forallotment of plots to 320 employees of the Housing Board in an extent of13 acres on southern side of Phase-IV situated at Kukatpally, Hyderabad@ 45/- per square yard subject to the condition that no Board employeeshall sell away or exchange or mortgage the plot and that the plot withstructure, if any, will be resumed by the Government at any time for anyviolation of the Rules or the order of allotment.

On 04-06-1991, the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner issuedallotment letter to the employees by imposing four conditions, which read as follows:

1. He/She should pay the cost at Rs.45/- per square yardincluding the cost of land and development charges in lumpsum within 30 days from the date of receipt of allotment letter.including the cost of land and development charges in lumpsum within 30 days from the date of receipt of allotment letter.2.He/She should bear the charges incidental to the conveyanceof ownership of the plot, such as stamp duty, registrationcharges, plan charges and conveyance charges etc.of ownership of the plot, such as stamp duty, registrationcharges, plan charges and conveyance charges etc.

3. He/She should not part with, either whole or part of the plot,mortgage, sell or otherwise dispose off the plot, without the priorpermission of the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner,A.P. Housing Board.mortgage, sell or otherwise dispose off the plot, without the priorpermission of the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner,A.P. Housing Board.

4. If He/She wants to dispose off the plot, it should be sold to theA.P. Housing Board at the cost at which it was sold to him/her.A.P. Housing Board at the cost at which it was sold to him/her.

15. On 16-12-2000, a letter was issued by the ExecutiveEngineer, Housing, requesting for payment of difference of the cost ofplots allotted to the respective employees and some of the members werealso given plot numbers in respect of which they have to pay thedifference of money.

16. The contention of the Housing Board is that some of theApplicants failed to pay additional cost of the plot, therefore, the requestfor registration of plots in their favour cannot be entertained. A showcause notice is also not necessary as the allotment is not traceable eitherto any statutory right or any vested right upon the applicants. Thepetitioners have no vested right, therefore, they are not entitled forallotment of any plots. It was further contended by the Housing Board thatthe Housing Board felt that the needs of more number of people can bemet by making provision for construction of flats rather than plots. But,there is no proposal to sell the plots to third parties and the HousingBoard will utilize the land for the purpose of construction of flats.

17. It is further contended that 26.54 acres was never cleared bythe Government. It is also contended by the Housing Board thatG.O.Ms.No.2 cannot be applied to the A.P. Housing Board Employees forthe simple reason that unlike the Government employees allotment Rules,here:

1. The employees are seeking allotment at below the basicvalue and which mandatory provision for allotment to the Government employees,

2. The allottees/employees will have to produce ‘No House Certificate’ in the twin cities etc. It is pertinent to pointout here that from out of the above employees/allottees, manyhad taken House Building Loans and purchased houses in thetwin cities. About 50% people are working in the districts andthey never worked in Hyderabad. And they in turn have gothouses in their local area on their own or because they got anallotment of A.P. Housing Board Houses,

3. Government allotment rules are limited to employees, whoare regular employees and in this particular case, 46 are work-charged staff, but later on were removed from the jobs, 5 ofemployees have resigned, 23 of the employees expired, 31employees either retired or taken VRS; and the employees inthe service were only 214.

18. The Housing Board issued a Circular No.19407, dated 09-09-1991 for payment of cost of development charges in 30 equal instalmentsinstructing the Regional Housing Engineers and disbursement officers todeduct monthly instalments from the work charged employees and tosend the amount by D.D. to the Regional Housing Engineer, WesternDivision, A.P. Housing Board. When the A.P. Housing Board addresseda letter, dated 04-08-1992 for notification of orders for allotment of plots tothe A.P. Housing Board employees, the Government gave a reply, which reads as follows:

“With reference to your letter cited, I am to state that the matterneed not come to Government. You may take necessary actionto decide at your level as the proposed land will be under thecontrol of the Board, as discussed by the Minister for Housingwith you on 27.5.94.”

On the basis of the said letter, the Housing Board resolved to allot26.541 acres of land for allotment of house sites and subsequent to thatResolution, the Housing Board addressed a letter to the Government on11-12-1995 for favour of information about the allotment of 26.541 acres tothe employees for allotment of plots.

19. The first respondent contended that the approval of theGovernment was given only for 13 acres and the approval of the

Government has not been obtained for the remaining land and what isobtained later is from the Deputy Secretary referring to discussion with theMinisters and not a Government approval. Though the Governmentcontended that the very proposal for allotment would be contrary to thespirit of the provision of A.P. Housing Board Act, ever since certain stepswere already taken in respect of allotment of plots, the Housing Board feltthat the concerned employees should not be deprived of the enjoyment ofthe house property. It is the contention of the Housing Board that theBoard felt that had the land been registered in favour of the applicants, theBoard would be looser of property worth about 500 crores by givingbenefit to limited group of people. G.O.Ms.No.32 would benefit a largernumber of people and in the context of changing scenario, it would bemore appropriate to go for multi storied housing complex rather thanindividual houses which would benefit more number of needy people.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the followingjudgments in support of their contentions:

I n Aeronautics Employees Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Vs.

The Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad and others[[1]]this High Court whileconsidering the scope of doctrine of promissory estoppel held as follows:

“The doctrine of promissory estoppel applies also againstthe Government. It is no defence for the Government to say thatbecause of executive necessity, it need not keep up its promise.

Where the State Govt. promised assignment of land forhouse sites for the employees of a Central Govt. undertakingwhen vast tracts of land was readily available for constructionpurposes and, at the instance of the State Govt., the employeesin question formed themselves into a Co-operative society,resiling from the promise towards the last stage after a long lapseof about eight years, on the ground that its own employeesshould be given preference, was unreasonable. Apart from theprinciple of promissory estoppel, in the interests of goodGovernment the commitment made to the management of theundertaking should be honoured.

Had the State Government told the management of theundertaking in the beginning itself when vast tracts of land wasreadily available for construction purposes, the managementwould have explored alternative arrangements to provide housingaccommodation to their employees. Because of the promisemade by the State Government, the management, thinking that the promise would be acted upon, did not explore otherpossibilities. It is the promise of the government that had alteredthe position of the society.

The employees of any Central Government public sectorundertaking, after having been promised assignment of land,should not be subjected to disappointment on the ground of thepolicy of the Government that the State Government employeesshould be given preference in the matter of assignment of housesites. Apart from the legality of the Governmental action, itslegitimacy also is involved in a situation of the present type.”

In M.P.Sugar Mills Vs. State of U.P.[[2]],the Supreme Court held as follows:

“Where the Government makes a promise knowing orintending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact,the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, theGovernment would be held bound by the promise and thepromise would be enforceable against the Government at theinstance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is noconsideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded inthe form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of theConstitution. It is elementary that in a republic governed by therule of law, no one, howsoever high or low, is above the law. Every one is subject to the law as fully and completely as anyother and the Government is no exception. It is indeed the prideof constitutional democracy and rule of law that the Governmentstands on the same footing as a private individual so far as theobligation of the law is concerned, the former is equally bound asthe latter. The Government cannot claim to be immune from theapplicability of the rule of promissory estoppel and repudiate apromise made by it on the ground that such promise may fetterits future executive action. If the Government does not want itsfreedom of executive action to be hampered or restricted, theGovernment need not make a promise knowing or intending thatit would be acted on by the promisee and the promisee wouldalter his position relying upon it. But if the Government makessuch a promise and the promisee acts in reliance upon it andalters his position, there is no reason why the Governmentshould not be compelled to make good such promise like anyother private individual.”

In F.C.I. Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries[[3]],the SupremeCourt, while dealing with the aspect of the legitimate expectation, held asfollows:

“Though the first part of the submission of the respondent is correct but the proposition enunciated by the High Court whichforms the sole basis of its decision is too wide to be acceptableand has to be limited in the manner indicated hereafter. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the Stateand all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of whichnon-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettereddiscretion in public law: A public authority possesses powersonly to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to actfairly and to adopt a procedure, which is ‘fairplay in action’. Dueobservance of this obligation as a part of good administrationraises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen tobe treated fairly in his interaction with the State and itsinstrumentalities, with this element forming a necessarycomponent of the decision making process in all State actions.To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action,it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to thereasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to beaffected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise ofthe power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apartfrom affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. Thedecision so made would be exposed to challenge on the groundof arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminatediscretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, butprovides for control of its exercise by judicial review.

The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of acitizen, in such a situation, may not by itself by a distinctenforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to itmay render the decision arbitrary, and this is how therequirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectationforms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessaryconcomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is arelevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decisionmaking process. Whether the expectation of the claimant isreasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact ineach case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determinednot according to the claimant’s perception but in larger publicinterest wherein other more important considerations mayoutweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimateexpectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the publicauthority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement ofnon-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine oflegitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law andoperates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent.”

I n Council of Civil Service Unions V. Minister for the CivilService[[4]],the House of Lords indicated the extent to which the legitimate expectation interfaces with exercise of discretionary power. Theimpugned action was upheld as reasonable, made on due considerationof all relevant factors including the legitimate expectation of the applicant,wherein the considerations of national security were found to outweighthat which otherwise would have been the reasonable expectation of theapplicant. Lord Scarman pointed out that “the controlling factor indetermining whether the exercise of prerogative power is subject tojudicial review is not its source but its subject matter”. Again in Preston,in re[[5]]it was stated by Lord Scarman that “the principle of fairness hasan important place in the law of judicial review” and “unfairness in thepurported exercise of a power can be such that it is an abuse or excess ofpower”. These decisions of the House of Lords give a similar indication ofthe significance of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.

In Shanti Vijay and Co. Vs. Princess Fatima Fouzia[[6]], it is held that court should interfere where discretionary power is notexercised reasonable and in good faith.

In Union of India Vs. International Trading Co.[[7]],the Supreme Court held as follows:

“Though there can be quarrel with the proposition thatrenewal of a permit carries with it a valuable right, butundisputedly, for outweighing reasons of public interest, renewalcan be refused. If at the time when the matter is taken up forconsidering whether renewal is to be granted, there is a changein policy it cannot be said that the right is defeated by introductionof a policy. In such an event, the question of applying thedoctrine of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel losessignificance. It has not been disputed that in fact the policydecision exists. Legitimacy of the policy decision has not beenquestioned by the respondents. Doctrines of promissoryestoppel and legitimate expectation cannot come in the way ofpublic interest, which has to prevail over private interest. Thecase at hand shows that a conscious policy decision had beentaken and there was no statutory compulsion to act to thecontrary. In that context, it cannot be said that the respondentshave acquired any right for renewal. The High Court was notjustified in observing that the policy decision was contrary to thestatute and for that reason direction for consideration of theapplication for renewal was necessary. Had the High Court not

recorded any finding on the merits of respective stands, directionfor consideration in accordance with law would have been properand there would not have been any difficulty in accepting the pleaof the counsel for the respondents. But having practicallyforeclosed any consideration by the findings recorded,consideration of the application would have been a mereformality and grant of renewal would have been the inevitableresult, though it may be against the policy decision. That rendersthe High Court judgment indefensible.

A claim based on merely legitimate expectation withoutanything more cannot ipso facto give a right. For legal purposes,expectation is not the same as anticipation. Legitimacy of anexpectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction oflaw.

Even if it is accepted that there was any improperpermission, that may render such permissions vulnerable so faras the thirty-two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come tothe aid of the respondents. Two wrongs do not make a right. Aparty cannot claim that since something wrong has been done inanother case; direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuatinganother wrong. In such matters there is no discriminationinvolved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article14 of the Constitution cannot be pressed into service in suchcases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes isexistence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenancerepletion of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even ifhypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed insome other cases by introducing a concept of negative equalitythe respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have toestablish strength of their case on some other basis and not byclaiming negative equality.

Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to mattes ofgovernmental policy and if the policy or any action of theGovernment, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the testof reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. While thediscretion to change the policy in exercise of the executivepower, when no trammeled by any statute or rule is wide enough,what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that achange in policy must be made fairly and should not give theimpression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulteriorcriteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement ofevery State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstoneirrespective of the field of activity of the State is an acceptedtenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action bythe State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is theheartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama ofjudicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness ismore easily visualized than precisely defined. A questionwhether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimatelyanswered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Abasic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whetherthere is any discernible principle emerging from the impugnedaction and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness. Where a particular mode is prescribed for doing an act and thereis no impediment in adopting the procedure, the deviation to actin a different manner which does not disclose any discernibleprinciple which is reasonable itself shall be labeled as arbitrary. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows thatan act uninformed by reason is per se arbitrary.

If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, itwould be legitimate to take into consideration the nationalpriorities and adopt trade policies. The ultimate test is whetheron the touchstone of reasonableness the policy decision comesout unscathed. Reasonableness of restriction is to bedetermined in an objective manner and from the standpoint ofinterests of the general public and not from the standpoint of theinterests of persons upon whom the restrictions have beenimposed or upon abstract consideration. A restriction cannot besaid to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, itoperates harshly. In determining whether there is any unfairnessinvolved; the nature of the right alleged to have been infringed,the underlying purpose of the restriction imposed, the extent andurgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, thedisproportion of the imposition, the prevailing condition at therelevant time, enter into judicial verdict. The reasonableness ofthe legitimate expectation has to be determined with respect tothe circumstances relating to the trade or business in question. Canalisation of a particular business in favour of even a specifiedindividual is reasonable where the interests of the country areconcerned or where the business affects the economy of thecountry.”

21. The circumstances of the present case indicate that therespondents made up their mind to give plots to the petitioners. Rateswere also revised from time to time. Plots were also identified to theapplicants. 103 people admittedly paid the full amount as required by theHousing Board. Just before the registration of the sale deeds, it struck tothe respondents that they cannot lose the valuable land for the sake ofemployees. There was hike in prices due to delay in registering the plotsin favour of the applicants. It is nothing but normal that prices continue to increase and when delay is caused in taking decision, it pricks the mindof the Officers that they were giving away the lands for paltry amount,when the prevailing rates are very high. But the Officers failed to takenote of the fact that the Government fixed the rate by taking intoconsideration the then prevailing rates as on the date of taking decision. If the decision is implemented immediately, the properties would havebeen registered in the names of the respective applicants without theproblem of comparing the rates prevailing then and the present. Onaccount of delay in decision making, the applicants shall not be made tosuffer, at least those who scrupulously followed the instructions of therespondents and parted with the money as required by the respondents.

22. The first G.O. was issued on 10-01-1991. After 16 years, theimpugned G.O. has been issued after flowing of much water from the dateof earlier G.O. For the administrative laches or delays, the applicantscannot be made to suffer. When they fulfilled all the conditions, theylegitimately expect that they would get the benefit. Had they been giventhe land by executing the registered sale deeds, they would have madeconstructions long ago and would have comfortably lived in those houses.The impugned G.O. was issued only on the ground that on account ofescalation of prices, it is not desirable to part with the land to theemployees who have no statutory right for allotment of the plots. But theorders issued by the respondents from time to time indicate that there wasa practice of Housing Board allotting plots to its employees previously. The Board favourably considered the representation of a new set ofemployees for similar benefit of allotment of lands. Had the Board felt thatthere is no statutory right, it would have outright rejected the applicationby saying that the Board is not inclined to recommend to the Governmentfor allotment of house sites to the employees. Having recommendedfavourably, having obtained the G.O. from the Government for allotment ofthe lands, having fixed the rate and having collected the amount bydeducting the instalments from the salary of the respective applicants, it isnot just and proper on the part of the respondents to go back by taking anexcuse that the applicants have no right under the statute for allotment of the land.

23. The learned Advocate General submitted that the prayer inthese writ petitions is in the form of specific relief, therefore, it is for thepetitioners to approach the civil Court for appropriate remedy and the writpetitions cannot be maintained. The petitioners filed the writ petitions tohold that G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 issued by the Government isliable to be cancelled and consequently they are entitled to get the plotsregistered in their names in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991.The G.O. was questioned on the ground of arbitrariness on the part of theGovernment as it was issued solely on the ground that the land will fetchmore value if it is sold in the open market, unmindful of the sequence ofevents that went to the extent of registration of plots in favour of thepetitioners after complying all the formalities including recovery of saleconsideration as fixed by the Government etc. Since the Board took adecision to allot plots to its employees, after obtaining permission from theGovernment to sell the land as per the price fixed by the Government, andwhen the G.O. was issued authorizing the Board to execute the saledeeds, nothing remained to be in force by way of specific performance,therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention of the learnedAdvocate General that the relief sought for is in the form of specific relief.

24. Regarding the point whether the action of the respondents inchanging the scheme for allotment of house sites amounts to promissoryestoppel, there is an elaborate discussion in this Judgment how the Boardexpressed its intention for allotment of house sites, how the Governmentapproved the proposals made by the Housing Board and how therespondents made the petitioners to believe that the sale deeds will beregistered by allotting plot numbers and by addressing letters to pay theamounts and deducting the sale consideration from the salaries of therespective petitioners making them to have a legitimate expectation thatthe respondents have made all arrangements to register the sale deedsby clearing all the obstacles. Only on the basis of an idea crept in themind of one official, the respondents have gone to the extent of giving goby to the scheme on the sole ground that there will be loss to the Government if the sites are allotted to the respective petitioners. Therespondents, having made all arrangements for registration of the saledeeds in favour of the petitioners, are estopped from saying that there isno statutory right to the petitioners and that the Government will be put toloss and the land can be utilized for some other purpose. Afterconsidering the above aspects, this Court came to a conclusion thatG.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 is arbitrary to the extent of 103Applicants, who have paid the full amount as required by therespondents.

25. After going through the entire material, I am of the consideredview that G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 12-09-2006 is arbitrary to the extent ofabout 103 applicants, who have paid the full amount as required by therespondents, therefore, I am inclined to quash the G.O. in part to theextent of the eligible applicants, who have paid the entire amount asrequired by the respondents and the rest of the G.O. is held valid inrespect of the applicants, who are about 217 in number, who failed to paythe full amount as prescribed by the respondents.

26. In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed in part by quashing G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006 to the extent ofcancellation of allotment of plots in respect of the applicants, who paid thefull amount as required by the respondents. The respondents aredirected to register the plots in favour of the petitioners, who have paid theentire amount as prescribed by the respondents in G.O.Ms.No.2, dated10-01-1991 and deliver possession of the respective plots or such otherplots, which are situated contiguously by collecting such developmentand other charges as is required by the respondents on account of theamount spent for the development of the land. The option is left to theGovernment to continue the G.O.Ms.No.32 dated 12-09-2006 in force inrespect of other applicants, who paid the amounts in part or failed to payany amount, who are said to be 217 in number, by leaving the option tosuch petitioners either to go for purchase of the flots as mentioned in theG.O. or take the refund of the respective amounts with interest asmentioned in the impugned G.O. No order as to costs.

Date: -12-2008

__________________

Dr. G.YETHIRAJULU, J

YCR/SKMR

To

1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Housing Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad Housing Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

2. The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Mozamjahi Road, Hyderabad. A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Mozamjahi Road, Hyderabad.

3. The Executive Engineer, Western Division, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad

4. 2 CCs to G.P. for General Administration

5. 2 CCs to G.P. for Housing

6.2CD copies

[1]AIR 1990 AP 331AIR 1990 AP 331

[2]AIR 1979 SC 621AIR 1979 SC 621

[3](1993) 1 SCC 71(1993) 1 SCC 71

[4](1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)(1984) 3 All ER 935 (HL)

[5](1985) 2 All ER 327(1985) 2 All ER 327

[6](1979) 4 SCC 602(1979) 4 SCC 602

[7](2003) 5 SCC 437(2003) 5 SCC 437