THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.9124 of 2002 ORDER : The second petitioner is the owner of Flat No.4 in Block No.44, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad being a vendee from the A.P. Housing Board Colony. The first petitioner claims to have purchased this premises from the second petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 27-02-2002. The aforesaid flat appears to be located in a block which is in a corner of the colony and adjacent to private houses. It is stated that there is an open piece of an extent of 33.25 square yards land, situated between the premises of the petitioners and the private houses. The petitioners state that as the open plot was being misused by unsocial elements, the second petitioner wanted to purchase it from the respondents in order to have peaceful enjoyment of the residential premises. The respondents, however, initiated steps and issued notification No.424/LIG/BLP/E1/EE(S)/2000, dated 13-06-2000 proposing to auction the plot along with some other plots. The respondents fixed the upset price at Rs.5,000/- per square yard. The second petitioner approached this Court and filed Writ Petition No.11189 of 2000 and challenged the proposed auction. Contending that she had already applied for regularisation and at any rate although the value of the land was less than the upset price fixed by the respondents, she was prepared to purchase the plot at the price, as she had already made construction over the site. On the consent of both the parties, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by orders dated 28-06-2000 with a direction to the respondents not to conduct the auction in terms of the auction notice dated 13-06-2000 and offer the plot for sale to the second petitioner on consideration of Rs.8,000/- per square yard. This Court further directed that the petitioner should deposit 25% of the total amount within one month and balance amount by 31-06-2000. The said order was passed on the consensus of both the parties. As the petitioner contended that different prices were fixed as upset price in respect of other plots situated in the same area, this Court also observed that the petitioner could make a representation to the respondents and the same should be considered, but however it would not be an excuse for not depositing the amount within the time prescribed. Thereafter the first petitioner made a representation dated 01-04-2002 to the second respondent herein requesting to allot the plot at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per square yard. The respondents however did not apparently accede to the request to allot the plot at the aforesaid rate. A notice dated 04-04-2002 bearing No.B44/F4/LIG/BLP/Open Plot/E5(S)/2002/632 was addressed to the second petitioner directing payment of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the balance cost on or before 30-04-2002, as otherwise, the amount paid would be refunded and the plot would be sold in auction. In response thereto, the second petitioner made a representation dated 30-04-2002 to the first respondent and requested to consider her request for reduction of upset price and to extend time for payment of the amount as directed by Notice dated 04-04-2002. It is stated and as it is apparent that the respondent did not respond to the representation dated 30-04-2002. At this stage, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to set aside the aforesaid notice dated 04-04-2002 with a consequential direction to direct the respondents to reconsider the matter for fixing the upset price at Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/- per square yard as per the earlier proposed notification dated 13- 06-2000. Heard both parties. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the plot is situated adjacent to the Plot No.4 and the same is required for the beneficial enjoyment of the petitioners. On the permission earlier granted by the respondent vide letter No.44/4/LIG-BLP/E-I/EE.Hg(S)/94, dated 27-08- 1994 the petitioners have constructed a compound wall and thereby protected the plot which otherwise would have been either grabbed or put to misuse by unsocial elements. He, therefore, submitted that having regard to these factors, the respondents should have sold the plot at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per square yard instead of at Rs.8,000/- per square yard. The claim of the petitioners is not based on any statutory provisions. No law is brought to my notice pursuant to which the respondents are under an obligation to sell the plot at a particular price. On the other hand, there was a consent to purchase the plot at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per square yard and the consent was part of record in the earlier Writ Petition No.11189 of 2000, dated 28-06-2000. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot compel the respondents, particularly in the light of the consensus as recorded by this Court earlier, to accept the price as offered by the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the Writ Petition. This Court by orders in W.P.M.P.Nos.11287 of 2002 and 11288 of 2002, dated 14-05-2002 directed interim suspension of the Notice dated 04- 04-2002 on condition of the petitioner depositing the amount at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per square yard within two weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner complied with this order and accordingly deposited the amount. Having regard to the same, if the petitioners choose to comply with the impugned notice dated 04-04-2002 and purchase the plot at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per square yard, he is at liberty to do so. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 20th April, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Writ Petition No.9124 of 2002 Date : 20-04-2010 Between : B.Srinivasa Reddy and another .. Petitioners And The A.P. Housing Board, Gagan Vihar, Nampally, Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner and another .. Respondents