IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22062 of 2007 Between: K.M.Sarojini W/o.Late K.P.Ratnam R/o.Quarter No.8, Municipal Colony, Konkapally village, Amalapuram Mandal East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary Municipal Administration, Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration Masabtank,Hyderabad 3 The Amalapuram Municipality, Rep.by its Municipal Commissioner, Amalapuram, East Godavari 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 direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the endorsement Roc.No.1277/2006/A1 in respect of the Quarter No.8 situated at Alapati Municipal Colony, Amalapuram East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 28.10.1989 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to provide sale and allotment scheme to the petitioner in respect of the Quarter No.8 situated at Alapati Municipal Colony, Amalapuram East Godavari District as per G.O.Ms.No.56 dated 28.10.1989. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SYAM PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. S.NAGESWARA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Smt.K.M.Sarojini assailing the endorsement Roc.No.1277/2006/A1, dated 27.08.2007 issued by Amalapuram Municipality rep. by its Commissioner-3rd respondent, whereby and whereunder she has been asked to vacate the premises within a month. 2. Background facts of the case leading to ﬁling of this writ petition by Smt.K.M.Sarojini in brief are: The petitioner worked as Headmistress in Municipal High School, Amalapuram and retired from service in the year 1992. While in service, she was allotted LIGH Quarter No.8, situated at Alapati Municipal Colony, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.110 Housing dated 07.10.1967 for implementation of the scheme with regard to allotment of houses on hire purchase basis. Certain instructions were issued under Memo.No.462/D3/76-14 Housing dated 05.01.1977 whereunder the occupancy of the allottees has been approved by the municipalities giving option to the occupants to purchase the houses on hire purchase basis. The Government after reviewing the issue, issued instructions vide Memo.No.483/D3/77-6 Housing dated 28.10.1977 where the houses have been initially allotted by the Municipalities on rental basis and where the allottees have been in occupation for not less then two years, procedure has been outlined. On receipt of proposals from various municipalities in the State for allotment of LIGH quarters constructed by municipalities on hire purchase basis to the existing occupants, the Government have reviewed the matter and issued instructions vide Memo.No.789/D186-4 Housing, dated 13.10.1986. Several representations have been received from the occupants of the quarters and also from various municipalities seeking allotment of the quarters to the existing occupants. The Government have reviewed the matter and accorded permission for allotment of quarters to the persons who have deposited 1/5th of the cost of the houses and has been residing two years preceding G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28.10.1989. Paras.6 and 7 of G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28.10.1989 read as hereunder: “6. Government have reviewed that matter once again and are of the view that since the existing persons have been in occupation of the houses constructed under L.I.G.H. Scheme for more than 25 years, having deposited 1/5th of the cost of the houses with the Municipalities and having repaired the houses by investing huge amounts and paying house taxes, the instructions issued in the Government Memo 4th read above not to sell these houses are bound to result in hardship to the occupants of the houses. This is particularly true in the context when the Government have approved as long back as in the year 1967 the sale of house to the persons who were already in occupation and who were eligible for such allotment on hire purchase basis and when again government issued orders in the Memo 3rd read above permitting the Municipalities to consider the cases of existing occupants who were in occupation for more than 2 years. 7. Therefore Government have decided that it is just and proper to allot houses on hire purchase basis to all those persons who were in occupation prior to October, 1986 as a special case as per prescribed guidelines.” It is the case of the petitioner that she has been residing in the L.I.G.H. Quarter No.8 for the last more than 30 years and therefore, she is eligible for allotment of the quarter under hire purchase as provided in G.O.Ms.No.56. She approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.14029 of 2006 seeking writ of Mandamus to the respondents to sell and allot the quarter No.8 situated in Alapati Municipal Colony, Amalapuram, to her. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 23.11.2006. The relevant portion of the order passed in the said writ petition reads as hereunder: “In the light of the respective stands taken by the parties in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the Writ Petition and also the respective counter aﬃdavits and also in the light of the speciﬁc stand taken by the 3rd respondent in paragraph 6 of the counter aﬃdavit that the proposal for allotment of quarter No.8 to the petitioner was already submitted to C & D.M.A., A.P., Hyderabad, vide Lr.Roc.No.6895/80-A1, dated 20.7.2006, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Writ Petition be disposed of directing the respondents to expedite the further steps at an early date. Except making this observation, no further relief can be granted.” The Commissioner, Amalapuram Municipality-3rd respondent issued endorsement dated 27.08.2007 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises. The endorsement reads as hereunder: “It is to inform you that you have not complied with the conditions and rules made thereunder G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dt.28.10.1989 and G.O.Rt.No.186 housing, dt.17.7.1999 which are mandatory in the eye of law, within stipulated time and you also fell in arrears of rents till today and hence you are not entitled to get the sale and allotment of the quarter facility. Hence it is ordered that you have to vacate the premises within 1 month from the date of receipt of this endorsement and handover it to the concerned Municipal Revenue Inspector, who is deputed for this purpose.” The said endorsement is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 ﬁled counter-aﬃdavits. Sunil Sharma, Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 that Quarter No.8 was allotted to the petitioner during the year 1969 on rental basis and the petitioner is not eligible for allotment of the said quarter in terms of G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing dated 28.10.1989 as she fell in arrears of rent and she is a defaulter. It is further stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that as per the report of the 3rd respondent that the petitioner has been informed to take her pensionery beneﬁts (gratuity etc.) through treasury for an amount of Rs.37,400/- as per the sanction orders No.PV.9 III S2 2461 SP-1001 92-01 of AG Audit, A.P., Hyderabad. The Provident Fund was already paid to the petitioner vide Order No.601792 leaving a balance of Rs.3000/- for audit purpose in Proceedings Roc.No.550/92/C2, dt.21.7.92 of the Municipal Council, Amalapuram. For better appreciation, I may refer para.7 of the counter-affidavit and it reads as hereunder: “7. In reply to para.11 of the aﬃdavit, it is submitted that the LIGH Quarter No.8 pertains to the third respondent Municipality. The repairs to the said Quarter have to be made by the Municipality from its general funds only and this respondent is nothing to do with the said repairs. The allegation that the petitioner spent thousands of rupees for the repairs is also false and far from truth. As per the report of third respondent, she is not residing in the quarter and she is residing at Plot No.196, Visalakshi Nagar, Visakhapatnam which was also evident from the aﬃdavit furnished by her to the third respondent Municipality on 1.4.2002. The petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing dt.28.10.1989 and G.O.Rt.No.186 Housing dt.17.7.99 and she is not entitled to get the LIGH Quarter No.8 allotted to her on hire purchase basis.” 4. M.Durga Pratap, Municipal Commissioner, Amalapuram, has sworn to the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondent No.3. It is stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that Quarter No.8 has been allotted to the petitioner on rental basis. The petitioner never paid the rents regularly and she is in arrears of Rs.14,000/- for a period of 70 months at once. As on this day, she is in arrears of rents to a tune of Rs.50,200/-. It is further stated in the counter-aﬃdavit that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28.10.1989 and G.O.Rt.No.186 Housing, dated 17.7.1999 and therefore, she is not eligible for allotment of quarter No.8 on hire purchase basis. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in occupation of the quarter from the year 1968 and therefore, she is eligible for the beneﬁt of G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28.10.1989. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28.10.1989 and therefore, she is not eligible to claim allotment of the quarter on hire purchase basis. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner failed to pay the rentals and an amount of Rs.50,200/- is due to be collected from her towards rentals. 9. The question that calls for adjudication in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing dated 28.10.1989. As per the G.O., the occupant must have paid 1/5th of the cost of the house. The relevant portion of the G.O. has already been extracted supra. The primary requisite of payment of 1/5th of the cost of the house has not been complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that she oﬀered to pay 1/5th of the cost of the house and the authorities refused to receive the same. I have gone through the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition and also reply aﬃdavit. It is nowhere stated therein that the petitioner oﬀered 1/5th of the cost of the house. When the petitioner did not state of oﬀering 1/5th of cost of the house and rejection of the same by the authorities in the writ aﬃdavit and reply aﬃdavit, she cannot be permitted to contend that she fulﬁlled the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28.10.1989. When once the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.56 Housing, dated 28.10.1989, she cannot seek any Mandamus to the respondents to direct them to allot Quarter No.8, which she claims to be in her occupation. The endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent in the given facts and circumstances of the case is legal and proper and the same is not required to be interfered with in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:16th September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}