IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO: 3819 of 2009 Between: M.seenaiah, s/o. sathaiah, H.NO.1-9-312/5/2/1A, Street No.6, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, rep by its Metropolitan Commissioner, Estate Management Unit, C-Block, Ground Floor, HMDA Commercial Complex, Taranaka, Hyderabad-500 007 2 Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep by its vice Chairman Estate Management Unit, C-Block, Ground Floor, HMDA Commercial Complex, Taranaka, Hyderabad-500 007 3 Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep by its Secretary, Estate Management Unit, C-Block, Ground Floor, HMDA Commercial Complex, Taranaka, Hyderabad-500 007 4 Sri N.Naveen Kumar, S/o.N.Mothi Ram, H.No.17-6-224, Dabeerpura Sunnarjuli, Hyderabad-23 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in allotting the quarter bearing No.263 at Madhuban Residential Complex of HUDA, Hyderabad in favour of the 4th respondent in Proceedings No.1/EMU/MRC/HUDA/96 dated 19-10- 2002 without communicating the said orders and communicating the same vide Letter No.2835/A2/EMU/MRC/11/86 only on 23.10.2008 and also not revoking the earlier cancellation orders dated 15-9-1994 as per the policy of the Board and not communicating the said orders as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300(A) of the constitution of India and consequentially declare that the Respondents are under legal obligation to allot the Quarter bearing No.263, Madhuban complex of HUDA, Hyderabad in favour of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.RAMANA Counsel for Respondents: M.DHANANJAY REDDY (SC FOR HUDA) FOR R27.02.09,VAK-1-3 The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The petitioner states that the then Bhagyanagar Urban Development Authority allotted House bearing No. MIG-263 in Madhuban Residential Complex on 21.10.1981. The value of the house was fixed at Rs.46,000/- payable in 40 quarterly instalments of Rs.1,289-55 each. The petitioner, as per the terms and conditions of allotment, he made initial deposit of Rs.12,950/- within 30 days from the date of allotment. On 11.04.1986, the petitioner claims, he was given possession of the house by the respondent, and that by the end of July, 1992, he had paid an amount of Rs.33,950/-. Thereafter, on 05.03.1999, the petitioner claims that he remitted an amount of Rs.36,107/- to the account of HUDA and requested for waiver of interest. That by September-October, 1998, he paid total amount of Rs.75,000/-. While so, the petitioner states that he received a letter from the respondent calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs.83,660/- being the balance amount payable as on 31.12.1998. According to the petitioner, that as per the records of the respondent, he was liable to pay balance amount of Rs.8,000/- only, and that by representation dated 19.04.2008, he brought this fact to the notice of the respondents duly informing them that he has already paid an amount of Rs.75,000/- and that he is still liable to pay only an amount of Rs.8,000/- and requested them to furnish the particulars of the amounts already paid by him. As the respondents did not furnish the particulars as sought for by him, the petitioner states that he made representation dated 07.07.2008 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting them to furnish the particulars of payment made by him. Responding to the said request, the petitioner states that the respondents called upon him to visit their office on 14.07.2008 for inspection of the files. The petitioner states that accordingly, he visited the office of the respondents, and they furnished the necessary information. On looking into the files, the petitioner states that he was surprised to see that the allotment made in his favour was cancelled on 15.09.1994, and thereafter, vide proceedings dated 19.10.2002, it was allotment in favour of some other person. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to revoke the cancellation order dated 15.09.1994, and to declare the order of re-allotment in favour of some other person vide orders dated 19.10.2002, as illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had paid more amount than the amount fixed by the respondents towards allotment of the house. However, the respondents, without taking into consideration the factum of the amounts paid, without issuing any notice, have vide orders dated 15.09.1994 cancelled the allotment made in his favour and thereafter, without communicating a copy of the same, and without issuing any notice, have, vide proceedings dated 19.10.2002, allotted the house in favour of some other person, which is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that the Board has taken a policy decision to revoke the cancellation of allotment, where individuals have made payment 60% or more of the amount fixed towards cost of the house, subject to collection of 5% penalty on the sale price. He submits that since the petitioner has paid more than 90% of the cost of the house, he is entitled to the benefit of the policy decision and thereby he is entitled to get the benefit of revocation of the cancellation of the allotment, but the action of the respondents in not extending the benefit of the said policy decision of the board is illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the official respondents, namely the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. As directed by this Court, the official respondents furnished copy of the cancellation order dated 15.09.1994 to the petitioner. They have also produced the relevant note file, which led to the cancellation of allotment of the house, and re-allotment of the same to the 4th respondent, vide proceedings dated 19.10.2002. As per the terms and conditions of allotment, the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs.46,000/- being the cost of the house in 40 quarterly instalments of Rs.12,950/- each, commencing from the year 1982, after the initial deposit of Rs.1,289-55/- each, and also make an initial deposit of Rs.12,950/- which he paid. The petitioner, admittedly, did not make the payment regularly and he committed default in making the payment. As the petitioner committed default in paying the quarterly installments, the record produced by the respondents discloses that they have issued notice dated 31.03.1994, calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.32,238.75. However, it appears the petitioner did not pay the same. As the petitioner did not pay the said amount and as there was no response from him, the respondents vide orders dated 15.09.1994, cancelled the allotment of house made in his favour. Though the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on 15.09.1994, the note file produced by the respondents discloses that as against the outstanding amount of Rs.87,280/- which is inclusive of interest the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.70,000/-. However, vide orders proceedings dated 19.10.2002, the respondents have re-allotted the house in favour of the 4th respondent. Though the petitioner contends that since he paid more than 90% of the cost of the house, he is entitled to the benefit of the policy of the Board, which provides that revocation of cancellation of allotment would be made where the allottees have made payment of 60% and above subject to collection of 5% penalty, the fact remains that the said policy is applicable only in cases where after cancellation, the house is not allotted to any other third party. Since in the instant case, by the time the petitioner made request for revocation, the house was already allotted to the 4th respondent, no exception can be taken to the action of the official respondents in not considering the request of the petitioner for revocation of the cancellation order, particularly when the Board’s policy decision is much subsequent to the order of reallotment made in favour of the 4th respondent Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. Since the official respondents, after passing the order of cancellation dated 15.09.1994 and after re-allotment of the same vide orders dated 19.10.2002 in favour of the 4th respondent have collected some amounts from the petitioner, which they could not have collected, obviously in view of the cancellation and allotment in favour of the 4th respondent, the respondents are directed to refund the said amounts which they have collected from the petitioner without any right expeditiously. No costs. ________________ (N.V.RAMANA, J.) 4th March, 2009 Js.