THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 17992 of 2007 Oral order: Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in canceling HIG-B house at Gachibowli allotted to him, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Responding to the notification dated 27.12.1995 issued by the A.P. Housing Board for allotment of houses on hire purchase basis, the petitioner applied for allotment of HIG-B category house accompanied with a DD for Rs.39,500/- being 10% of the estimated cost of the house, which was fixed at Rs.3,95,000/-. Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 02.12.1997 intimated the petitioner that he was allotted MIG-B house, and called upon him to pay 20% of the estimated cost of the house in two equal instalments of Rs.39,500/- each within five months and nine months respectively from the date of the said letter, and the balance 70% in 40 equal quarterly instalments. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner states that he paid the said amounts. While so, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 08.12.1998, requesting the petitioner to make the payments regularly so as to avoid cancellation of allotment. Respondent No.2, vide letter dated 29.01.20000, intimated the petitioner that the construction of the house is like to be completed by 29.02.2000, and while informing him that the revised tentative cost of HIG-B house is fixed at Rs.5,32,200/-, requested him to pay the same and take possession of the house. Thereafter, respondent No.2, vide letter dated 12.12.2002, informed the petitioner to pay the hire purchase instalments amounting to Rs.1,45,000/- and take physical possession within 15 days by executing sale deed, failing which allotment will be cancelled. The petitioner states that the respondents delayed the providing of basic amenities, and they provided the said amenities only in October, 2004, and though thereafter, the petitioner addressed letters dated 21.01.2006 and 28.01.2006 along with cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-, the respondents refused to receive the same, and issued the impugned letter dated 08.02.2006 to the petitioner informing him that the house allotted in his favour was already cancelled vide proceedings dated 04.08.2004 and they have decided to put the house to public auction. Assailing the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not pay the instalments in time as the respondents have not provided the basic amenities, and though after providing the basic amenities, the petitioner sent cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-, the respondents did not receive the same and informed him that the allotment of house made in his favour was already cancelled. He submits no notice whatsoever was given by the respondents before canceling the allotment of house made in his favour, and as such, the action of the respondents suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice, and prayed that the impugned order be set aside. The respondents filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterating the counter averments submitted that the petitioner did not pay the instalments as per the allotment conditions, and despite calling upon him to pay the due amounts and get the sale deed executed in his favour, he has not taken any steps, and therefore, respondents after giving final notice, cancelled the allotment, and the same was informed to the petitioner when he sought to make payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and for taking possession of the house, and no exception can be taken thereto. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-A.P. Housing Board. The contention of the petitioner that no notice whatsoever was issued by the respondents before canceling the allotment of house made in his favour cannot be accepted. The material produced by the respondents shows that though the tentative cost of the house was fixed at Rs.3,95,000/-, the fact remains, the same was revised to Rs.5,32,200/- taking into consideration the escalation in the material cost. The petitioner while being informed about the revision, vide letter dated 12.12.2002, was requested to pay Rs.1,45,000/- and take physical possession of the house by executing the sale deed, within fifteen days therefrom. It appears that the petitioner did not pay the said amount. As the petitioner is said to have not paid the said due amount, respondent No.2 issued notification dated 13.04.2004, finally requesting the petitioner and similarly placed persons to complete the formalities and take over possession of the house within a period of one month from the date of publication of the notice, failing which the allotment will be cancelled without any further notice duly forfeiting the amounts already paid. However, as the petitioner did not respond to the said notification, respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 04.08.2004, cancelled the allotment as per the allotment conditions duly forfeiting the amounts already paid. However, the petitioner on learning the allotment was cancelled, made representations dated 21.01.2006 and 28.01.2006 along with cheque for Rs.1,00,000/-, and acting on the said representations, respondent No.1 vide letter dated 08.02.2006 informed the petitioner that the allotment made in his favour was already cancelled and that they have decided to put house to public auction. Since, the material filed by the respondents, as discussed above, shows that the petitioner despite being given sufficient time to pay the due amount, and despite issuance of paper notification calling upon the petitioner and similarly placed to pay the due amount, else the allotment of house in his favour would be cancelled, the petitioner failed to respond to the same and pay the due amount, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in canceling the allotment and forfeiting the amounts as per the conditions of allotment, and as such, the petitioner cannot be allowed to contend that no notice whatsoever was issued by the respondents before canceling the allotment made in his favour and forfeiting the amounts paid. There is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 14th February, 2008. KSR