IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 16642 of 2006 Between: 1 Mohad Taher, S/o.Ahmed Shareef, R/o.Shop No.4, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 2 Avula Ashappa, S/o.Avula Sedhi, R/o.Shop No.6, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 3 Syed Sadat Ali, S/o.Syed Abdul, R/o.Shop No.8, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 Mohd.Mouzam Hussain, S/o.Mohd.Nasir Ahmed, R/o.Shop No.9, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 5 Mohammed Ali, S/o.Maheed Ali, R/o.Shop No.11 & 20, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 6 Qadeer, S/o.Jamel Ahmed, R/o.Shop No.13, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 7 Syed Hasham Ali, S/o.Syed Abdul Nabi, R/o.Shop No.14, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 8 Toufiq Khan, S/o.Mahaboob Khan, R/o.Shop No.15, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 9 Mohd.Hameed Miya, S/o.Moihd Hussain, R/o.Shop No.16, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. 10 Syed Khasim, S/o.Syed Hassan Ali, R/o.Shop No.22, A.P.H.B Colony, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary, Housing (HB.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, A.P.Housing Board, Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Engineer (Hg), North Division, A.P.Housing Board, Bharatnagar Colony, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MS.M.VENKATESWARI Counsel for Respondents 2 and 3:MS.G.SUDHA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside letter, dated 07.07.2006 whereby respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, North Division, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Hyderabad, fixed Rs.3,150/- and Rs.2,250/- per Sq.feet in respect of the shops in occupation of the petitioners. Heard Ms.M.Venkateswari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.G.Sudha, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (for short ‘APHB’) constructed shops in Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, and allotted the same to third parties. The petitioners came into occupation of the said shops through the said allottees and have been carrying on different kinds of businesses. The State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.67, dated 08.09.2001, wherein amendments were made to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS Houses or Flats) Regulations, 1997 (for short ‘the Regulations’). Sub Regulation (ii) of Regulation 27 of the Regulations was substituted as under: “(ii) In case the allottee so wishes by submitting a written application, prior to execution of the conveyance deed, the house or plot or flat shall be transferred in the name of Husband or Wife or Son or Daughter as the case may be. (iii) In case the allottee has transferred the flat or plot or house to a third party through a sale agreement, either on white paper or stamp paper signed by the allottee, the same will be transferred to the purchasee after levying transfer fee from the transferee at 7% of the present market value of the plot or flat or house as the case may be. (iv) In case of death in harness, the house or flat or plot shall be transferred in favour of the nominee, nominated by the allottee in favour of his/her family member. The allottee is at liberty to change the nomination during his/her lifetime. (v) If the allottee dies without leaving a nomination or a will, the normal legal procedure shall be followed.” The petitioners approached the respondents to sell the shops in their occupation in their favour in terms of the said G.O. However, APHB has taken a stand that the said G.O. has no application to the shops as it applies only to houses/plots/flats. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is inter alia stated that the petitioners have agreed to purchase the shops on plinth area basis at Rs.3,150/- per Sq.feet in respect of shops facing the National Highway and at Rs.2,250/- per Sq.feet for shops, which are situated on the rear side and that the petitioners failed to pay 25% of the total cost of the shops within one month from letter, dated 07.07.2006. The respondents relied upon Minutes of the meeting held on 20.09.2005 wherein the petitioners have agreed for the above- mentioned terms. It is further stated that the valuation done by the respondents was on the basis of the report submitted by M/s.C.V.Richard Ellis, to whom the said task was entrusted, and that the Sub-Committee constituted for this purpose, approved the proposal to sell the shops at the rates specified in its meeting held on 05.11.2005. It is also stated that the proposal of APHB was approved by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.104, dated 29.03.2006. The counter questioned the propriety of the petitioners to file the present writ petition, having agreed to pay the said amounts. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter affidavit. At the hearing, Ms.M.Venkateswari, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Sub-Registrar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, has given Valuation Certificate on 17.07.2006 and according to it, the market value of the property was Rs.1,080/- per Sq.feet. She submitted that the action of the respondents in fixing the sum of Rs.3,150/- and Rs.2,250/- per Sq.feet, depending upon the location, is wholly arbitrary. Having given my serious thought to the submissions of the learned counsel, I do not find any merit therein. The respondents have specifically stated that on the basis of the report submitted by a Consultant, the Sub-Committee in its meeting held on 05.11.2005 approved the proposal for sale of the shops at the rates assessed by the Consultant. They also specifically pleaded that the petitioners have in fact, agreed to pay the said amount. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted at the hearing that some petitioners have not agreed, this Court cannot go into this disputed question. The fact remains that the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.104, dated 29-03-2006 wherein it permitted the Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner of APHB to sell the shops situated at four places, namely, V.R.Nagar Colony, S.R.Nagar Colony, Kukatpally Colony and P.S.Nagar Colony at different rates as shown therein. In respect of the shops in question, which are situated in S.R.Nagar Colony, the price of Rs.3,150/- per Sq.feet for shops facing National Highway and Rs.2,250/- per Sq.feet for shops situated on the rear side, was fixed. The petitioners failed to question the said G.O. At any rate, except placing reliance on a xerox copy of the purported Valuation Certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad, they have failed to place any credible material to show that the market value of the shops is less than the price fixed in G.O.Rt.No.104, dated 29.03.2006. This Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into the disputed questions, namely, whether there was any agreement between the petitioners and APHB for sale of the shops at the above-mentioned rates and what exactly was the market value of the shops. The petitioners being the transferees from the original allottees can at best claim right to purchase the shops at the existing market value. If the petitioners for any reason feel that the respondents have arbitrarily fixed the market value, they can only approach the competent Civil Court to establish the correct market value by adducing necessary evidence. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the dispute between the petitioners and APHB with regard to the existing market value. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in the light of the observations contained in this order. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.20843 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd June, 2009. ktl/kvni