IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 84 of 2010 Between: C. Susheela Devi ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No :84 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice T.Meena Kumari The order dated 16.7.2009 passed by a learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.8075 of 2003 is challenged by the unsuccessful petitioner. In the above writ petition, the appellant challenged a part of proceedings in letter No.30408/11/98 MA, dated 4.9.2001 and the consequential rejection order in letter No.P/2003/HUDA/EMC/02 dated 21.12.2002. The appellant had purchased plot No.70 in HUDA Heights and HUDA Enclave, on the basis of auction-cum-tender. As per the conditions of the auction, 1/4th of sale price shall be paid towards initial deposit at the time of auction and the balance amount shall have to be paid within two months. Further, the bidder is also given an option to pay the amount within six months with 20% interest from the date of auction. In the event of non-payment of balance amount within a period of six months, the allotments were liable to be cancelled by forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit. The appellant had paid 1/4th of the sale price on the date of auction and the balance amount within a period of six months along with interest and got the sale deed executed on 4.11.1997 by the 2nd respondent in her favour. While so, on the representation made by the Convener of HUDA Heights and HUDA Enclave Plot Owners’ Welfare Association for waiver of interest including penal interest on the ground that necessary infrastructure like drinking water, electricity, drainage and roads, was not provided, the 1st respondent-Government decided that HUDA shall collect simple interest from the date of completion and providing amenities to the layouts, from the plot owners, who have not fully paid so far. The Government also made it clear that the said decision shall apply to the plot owners, who have not paid full amount and interest and that the said decision shall not apply to the owners, who have already paid and there shall be no refund. The appellant herein filed a representation for refund of interest, but the said representation was rejected. The main grievance of the appellant is that she had purchased the land in the auction held by HUDA and the respondents have not provided infrastructure to the said layout and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to collect any interest and that though there is waiver of interest, the same is not extended to her and other similarly situated persons in discriminatory manner. While dismissing the above writ petition, the learned single Judge observed that the petitioner-appellant being fully aware of the conditions of sale, having paid the amount and after execution of the sale deed, she is not entitled to seek refund, and that the relief sought by her for refund of the amount with interest will run contrary to the very conditions. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the benefit extended to the defaulters must also be extended to the appellant whereas it is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the orders of the Government are confined only to the plot owners, who have not paid the bid amount within the time and that the appellant had already paid the amount as per the conditions of the auction and therefore, she is not entitled to claim refund. The facts that remain undisputed are that in terms of the bid, the appellant had paid the amount and got the sale deed executed in her favour and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the plot. The appellant had paid the amount as per the terms of the bid notification voluntarily without any objection and she has been enjoying the property. Insofar as the persons, who are benefited under the proceedings dated 4.9.2001 are concerned, they are the defaulters and they approached the Government for settlement of issue and waiver of interest for all the period during which, the infrastructure facilities were not completed. On a perusal of the material on record, it appears that the appellant had paid the amount voluntarily as per the terms, without any objection and got the sale deed executed in her favour and she has been in possession and enjoyment of her plot. It is obvious that the appellant is not similarly situated person as that of the persons to whom the benefit was given under the proceedings dated 4.9.2001. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the order of the learned single Judge needs no interference. Hence, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ T. Meena Kumari, ACJ _________________ G. Chandraiah, J Dated: 15.02. 2010 Nn. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO : 84 of 2010 (Division Bench Judgment delivered by Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice T. Meena Kumari) 15.2.2010