IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10633 of 2004 Between: P.C. Subbarayaudu, S/o. Bhushanam, Hindu, aged about 60 years, Retired Municipal Assistant Engineer, R/o.Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Principal Secretary to Govt., Dept. of Municipal Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and four others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for respondents: G.P. for Municipal Admn. & and Urban Dev. Mr. S. Nageswara Reddy The Court made the following Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents by way of Mandamus to fix the sale price of LIGH Quarter No.3, situated in the limits of Ongole Municipality, allotted to him, as per G.O.Ms.No.2017 dated 03-09-1958 and, further questions proceedings dated 21-04-2003 issued in Roc.No.5951/98-H3, fixing the sale price of the quarter in question. 2. The petitioner, a retired employee of Ongole Municipality, was in occupation of a quarter belonging to the Municipality since 1979 as a tenant. In view of the decision of the Government for allotment of quarters on hire-purchase basis, the petitioner approached this court by way of W.P.No.5677 of 1989. This court, by order dated 09-04-1993, issued directions to the Commissioner, Ongole Municipality, to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of quarter on hire-purchase basis in terms of G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 18-10-1986. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the claim of the petitioner was considered and he was allotted LIGH Quarter No.3 in Ongole Municipal limits and a statement showing the sale price of the quarter was also furnished to him. According to the said statement, the cost of the quarter is Rs.2,91,487/-. 3. The case of the petitioner is that similarly placed persons who were allotted quarters on hire-purchase basis were charged only Rs.32,000/-, Rs.31,000/-, Rs.29,000/- etc., and, as such, there is no basis for fixation of cost price of the quarter allotted him, as furnished in the statement enclosed along with the letter dated 29-04-2003. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the petitioner was in possession of the quarter prior to allotment on hire-purchase basis, respondents ought not to have taken the cost of site and construction portion, at the time of allotment. The petitioner seeks to rely on the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.2017 dated 03-09-1958 wherein certain guidelines were issued for allotment of houses on hire-purchase basis. In the said guidelines, with regard to fixation of sale price, it is stated that the local body in consultation with the Government shall fix the sale price by taking into consideration the cost of the land, cost of construction, cost of internal fittings, maintenance, other incidental charges etc. 5. Even according to the petitioner, the allotment was made pursuant to the directions of this court, by proceedings dated 21-04-2003. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that in spite of such allotment, the petitioner has not turned up and paid the sale price, as fixed. It is stated that the allotment itself is in the year 2003 and, hence, the respondents have taken the land value and the cost of construction of the relevant year and arrived at the sale price. It is to be noted that though the petitioner was in occupation of the same quarter prior to allotment on hire- purchase basis, but he was in occupation only as a tenant of the Municipality. On the ground that he was in occupation of the same quarter earlier, he cannot seek fixation of sale price as per G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 28-10-1989 when the very quarter has been allotted to him on hire-purchase basis in the year 2003 only. Although the petitioner seeks to rely on fixation of sale price to similarly situated persons, but it is not known when allotments were made in their favour and when the sale price was paid, etc. In the absence of any such information, it is not possible for this court to record any finding with regard to discrimination alleged by the petitioner. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any valid ground to grant relief as prayed for. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. November 4, 2009 MRR