IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19082 of 2008 Between: G.L.Sarada W/o.Gopala Krishna R/o.Flat No.526,Alekhya Radha Sada Opp:Maharana Pratap Function Place, Road No.6 Amberpet, Hyderabad-13 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep., by its Commissioner and Special Officer, Tank Bund,Hyderabad 3 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad 4 The Allotment Committee, rep.by its Chairman and Additional Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad 5 The Bagh Amberpet Welfare Society, rep.by its President bearing Registration No.599/1981, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013 .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order or writ one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allotting the plot MIG-II under HUDCO Scheme 1974 at Bathkammakunta, Bagh Amberpet in pursuance of Notiﬁcation dated 8.4.1974 and not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 16.10.2003, 29.5.2007, 11.1.2008, 25.4.2008 and 17.6.2008, and proceeding to allot the plot to others as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently call for the records and direct the respondents to allot the plot to the petitioner in Bathkammakunta under MIG-II Scheme. Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by Smt.G.L.Sarada assailing the action of the respondents in not allotting a plot MIG-II under HUDCO Scheme 1974 at Bathkammakunta, Bagh Amberpet, to her in pursuance of the notification, dated 08-04-1974, and not considering her representations, dated 16-10-2003; 29-05-2007; 11-01-2008; 25-04-2008; and 17-06-2008, and proceeding to allot the plots to others. 2. The petitioner and her husband namely Gopalakrishna worked as Lecturers and retired from service. While they were in service, they applied for allotment of MIG plots as per their eligibility. They also paid fee of Rs.500/- along with their application, dated 08-04-1974. They were asked to deposit the land value of Rs.10,465/- which they deposited on 02-05-1991 vide draft No.49766, dated 01-05-1981. Thereafter, the matter landed in litigation. The Supreme Court in C.A.No.6988/91/94 by common order, dated 14-09-1999, issued certain directions. Ultimately the Supreme Court in C.A.No.6988/91/94 upheld the notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. In pursuance of the directions given by the Supreme Court, a committee was constituted to examine the eligibility of the members to claim allotment of house sites. The area originally proposed under various categories of plots has been reduced as follows: E.W.S.I. : 16’X 40’ E.W.S.II : 20’ X 45’ L.I.G. : 22 ½ ‘ X 54 M.I.G.I. : 36’X 60’ M.I.G.II : 36’ X 65’ 3. Notices were issued by the Estate Oﬃcer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Petitioner could not attend before the Estate Oﬃcer on 11-03-2002 for veriﬁcation of documents. She represented to the Estate Oﬃcer by letter, dated 16-10-2003, requesting to arrange veriﬁcation of documents for allotment of plots under MIG category. She submitted representations repeatedly. There being no action on her representations, she approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned standing counsel of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on behalf of the respondents 2 and 4. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent without considering the claim of the petitioner is proceeding to allot plots to the new members. 7. The factual aspect of the petitioner submitting the representations is not contradicted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 4. 8. In that view of the matter the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 and 4 to consider the representations of the petitioner, dated 16-10-2003; 29-05-2007; 11-01-2008; 25-04-2008; and 17-06-2008, and pass appropriate orders. Till the conclusion of the enquiry on the representations submitted by the petitioner, one plot under MIG category shall be kept reserved for being allotted to the petitioner in the event of her ﬁnding eligible after due enquiry on her representations. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 04th September, 2008 Tsy To 1 The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep., by its Commissioner and Special Officer, Tank Bund,Hyderabad 3 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad 4 The Chairman and Additional Commissioner, Allotment Committee, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad 5 The President, Bagh Amberpet Welfare Society, bearing Registration No.599/1981, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013 6 2CCs to GP for Municipal Admn. & Urban Dev. 7 2CD copies