Telangana High Court
WP/27660/2005 of K.Ananda Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh, Housing Board, rep.by its on 27 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.27660 OF 2005 DATED:27.12.2005 Between: K. Ananda Rao …Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Rep. by its Chairman, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.27660 OF 2005
DATED:27.12.2005
Between:
K. Ananda Rao
And
The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board,Rep. by its Chairman, Gruhakalpa,M.J.Road, Hyderabad and others …Petitioner …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
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:
WRIT PETITION NO.27660 OF 2005
The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the auction notification issued bysecond respondent dt.22.11.2005 dividing plot No.12 admeasuring 500.88 Sq.yardsat Srikakulam into four plots as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also seeks aconsequential direction to the respondents to restore possession of plot No.12 tohim.
The fact of the matter is in a narrow compass. In 1995, the respondentsconducted auction to sell the housing plots near Z.P. Layout, Srikakulam. Thepetitioner became highest bidder by quoting Rs.1,25,720/- and made initial paymentof Rs.31,430/-. He also allegedly paid a sum of Rs.41,290/- by way of demand draft.
Subsequently, he requested the second respondent to extend the time for paymentof balance amount, in vain. He also stated that the auction conducted in 1995 wasconfirmed in his favour, but the boundaries of the plot were not duly affixed on theground. On 6.12.2005 the petitioner allegedly approached the second respondent topay the balance of amount when he was informed that the petitioner’s plot No.12 isput to auction. Hence, present Writ Petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment of plot No.12 inZ.P. Layout to the petitioner was never cancelled and therefore the action of therespondents in re-auctioning the same is illegal and arbitrary, especially when thepetitioner is willing to pay the balance amount. Per contra, after getting instructionsin the matter, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Housing Board submits that asper the relevant Rules, the successful bidder in auction has to pay balance saleamount within a period of thirty days from the date of confirmation, that in the event ofdefault, the allotment stands cancelled and the amount paid shall be forfeited to theHousing Board and that by letter dt.11.7.1997 the allotment made in favour of thepetitioner was duly cancelled forfeiting the amount, which was intimated to thepetitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner approached the second respondent inOctober 2005 and he was duly informed by letter dt.25.10.2005 about cancellationand forfeiture of the amount and thereafter steps were initiated to auction theproperty.
The petitioner has not filed the orders allotting the plot and confirming thesaid allotment in his favour. The letter dt.25.10.2005 addressed by secondrespondent to the petitioner itself would show that the allotment made in favour ofthe petitioner was cancelled and the same was intimated to him by letterdt.11.7.1997. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the same and at this point oftime, the petitioner’s contention that the said letter is not received by him cannot beaccepted. If the petitioner is so advised, he may approach the second respondentand obtain a copy of the letter dt.11.7.1997 and seek redressal before appropriateforum. In this Writ Petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
_______________
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
27.12.2005
bnr