IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3794 of 2007 Between: Shaik Abdul Azeem, s/o (late Shaik Khamruddin, 31-4-9, G.P.Rao Street, r/o Maruthi Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority represented by its Vice Chairman, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Deputy Estate Management Officer, VGTM Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more fully in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the proceedings in Rc.No.A3/272/2000 dated 08-08-2006 of the respondents wherein the plot No.299 in Amaravathi Township Mangalagiri allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled and refund of only Rs.80,250/- was ordered as illegal, improper and consequently the respondents to restore the said plot to the petitioner on payment of balance amount of Rs.67,000/- by the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.K.SESHARAJYAM Counsel for the Respondents: K.ARUNA(SC FOR V.G.T.M.U.D.A) The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Shaik Abdul Azeem assailing the action of the respondents in canceling the allotment of Plot No.299 admeasuring 500 sq. yards to him. 2. The petitioner applied for allotment of house plot in Amaravathi Township, Mangalagiri. The Vice-Chairman Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority-1st respondent considered his application and allotted Plot No.299 admeasuring 500 sq. yards and ﬁxed the rate of the plot at Rs.1,75,000/-. The petitioner paid 25% within 10 days of the receipt of the allotment order. He sought extension of time for payment of the balance 75%. The 1st respondent granted extension of time and the petitioner paid Rs.1,08,000/- out of Rs.1,75,000/- by 11.04.2002. He came to know that allotment granted in his name in respect of Plot No.299 was cancelled by the 1st respondent on the ground that he failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.67,000/-. It is the plea of the petitioner that notices sent by the 1st respondent calling upon him to pay the balance amount are not served on him since he changed his residence and left for Mucca. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Smt.K.Aruna, learned Standing Counsel of Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, received notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.08.2008 to the 1st respondent detailing the circumstances under which notices allegedly sent by the 1st respondent have not been served on him. Learned counsel seeks direction to the 1st respondent to consider the said representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. 6. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation, dated 14.08.2008, submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:22nd August, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}