IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 22259 of 2006 Between: 1 Satyala Prasanna Kumar S/o. Venkata Raju R/o. MIG 531, Phase X, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Rajahmundry. 2 Damera Venkata Rama Swamy S/o. D.V. Surya Rao R/o. MIG 520 Phase X, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Rajahmundry. 3 Peesapati Mangatayaru W/o. Narasimha Murthy R/o. MIG 503 Phase X, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Rajahmundry. 4 Batturuchetty Chennaiah S/o. Krishna rao R/o HIG 62 Phase X, A.P. Housing Board Colony, Rajahmundry. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The A.P. Housing Board, Rep. by its Vice Chairman-Cum- Housing Commissioner, 2 The Executive Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Nallajerla Road, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notices letter NO. A6/Ph.X/RJY/Rev.F.C./2006 dt. 6th,10th,6th & 25th September, 2006 by demanding enhanced land cost from Rs. 54/- to Rs. 1100 for MIG and Rs. 1320 for HIG houses respectively and also the centage charges as exfacie illegal, arbitrary contrasry to the statute and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential order directing the respondents to collect the true value of the land at the time of purchase i.e, Rs. 54 per Sq. yard and also not to collect centage charges by setting aside the impugned notices and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 22259 of 2006 Oral Order: The petitioners impeach the notices issued by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (for short ‘the Board’) demanding the ﬁnal cost of the houses allotted to the petitioners in Phase-X at Rajahmundry in respect whereof, the petitioners entered into independent lease- cum-sale agreements with the Board. The petitioners assail the notices issued by the Board on several grounds including that the ﬁnal cost (which is higher than the initial cost assumed between the parties) includes the component of the current market value of the land on which houses were constructed. The petitioners contend that since the Board is pursuing its business on a ‘no proﬁt, no loss’ basis and there was no escalation in the cost of the land as a consequence of any land acquisition litigation nor grant of a higher market value to the original landholders by the reference Court under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the Board is not entitled to charge a higher component of the market value for the land and include the same in the ﬁnal cost of the houses allotted to the petitioners. The relationship between the petitioners and the Board is governed by the terms of a contract entered into between them known as a ‘lease cum-sale agreement.’ The terms of such a contract enable the Board to charge a higher value either on account of escalation in the cost of construction or for escalation in the cost of the land acquired by the Board for the construction of the houses. The contention of the petitioners that the validity of the action of the Board in including the component of the current market value of the land on which the houses are constructed is contrary to the terms of contract entered into between the parties, is a contention which invites interpretation of the terms of the contract. The contract between the parties per se is not a statutory contract. Disputes with regard to the interpretation of the terms of a non- statutory contract, which are not threshold disputes are more appropriately determined before an arbitral tribunal if there be any arbitration clause (the parties are agreed that there is no arbitration clause) or before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No fundamental issues of public law are involved. In the circumstances and on the analysis above, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the issues presented in this writ petition and relegates the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedy before the Civil Court of Competent jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 07-08-2008 pvks