Telangana High Court
WA/1783/2008 of Sri Challa Ramachander, Vs The Government of A.P. on 26 December 2008
SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1783 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both sides. 2. The writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 24.09.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court
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.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAHWRIT APPEAL No.1783 of 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)
Heard both sides.
2. The writ appeal is directed against the order,dated 24.09.2008, passed by a learned single Judge ofthis Court dismissing Writ Petition No.9142 of 2004.
3. The said writ petition was filed seeking to declarethe letter, dated 09.01.2004, issued by the first respondentdirecting the second respondent to conduct public auctionof the writ petitioner’s house bearing Nos.10-1-573/1 and10-1-573/2, situate in TIT Quarters, East Marredpalli,Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.
4. Appellants are the writ petitioners andrespondents are the respondents in the said writ petition.
5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, theparties will be referred to as arrayed in the said writpetition.
6. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that theland in the same locality where the petitioners house wassituate was being disposed of for a price of Rs.2,000/- persquare yard. It appears that earlier, other lands around this locality were disposed of for a lesser sum also. Therefore, on that ground, the writ petitioners seekassignment of the said land at a cheaper price.
7. Learned single Judge taking note of the decisionrendered in Abdul Irfan Amoodi Vs. Andhra PradeshHousing Board(W.A.No.884 of 2006), dated23.08.2006), whereby it was held by a Division Bench ofthis Court that no public authority can be compelled to sellits land or property to a citizen, dismissed the said writpetition. Even otherwise, such property if intended to bedisposed of, the same can be only by way of publicauction and not in any other way. Of course, thatinstances are in rare circumstances.
8. Further, the writ petitioners are only intendingpurchasers of the Government land. In other words, theyare only making an offer for a sum of Rs.2,500/- persquare yard to the Government. When it is not acceptablefor the respondents, the same can be denied. Therecannot any concluded contract nor the Government or theGovernment agency can be compelled to dispose of itsproperty to a citizen for a particular price.
9. The theory of offer and acceptance is one thingthat cannot be ignored, and as already pointed out, evenotherwise, such sale is desirable to be made only by wayof public auction.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion,we do not find any illegality or infirmity in theimpugned order, passed by the learned singleJudge, warranting interference by this Courtand accordingly, the writ appeal is liable to bedismissed.
11. In the result, the writ appeal is
dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, this order does not preclude therespondents from considering the request ofthe writ petitioners. There shall be no order asto costs.
______________________
JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA
26[th] December 2008dr
________________________
JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH