IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1367 of 2011 Between: G. Hussenaiah … Appellant And Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Hyderabad and others. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1367 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is filed against the order of dismissal dated 17.11.2011 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.12667 of 2010. The brief facts of the case are: In pursuance of notification, dated 27.07.2009, issued by the 1st respondent Corporation for the location of Kisan Seva Kendra at Palakur Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District, the appellant and the third respondent along with others have offered their sites. All the applicants were interviewed and on inspection of the sites, the third respondent’s site bearing Sy.No.142/1 was selected and he was short listed at No.1. On a complaint stating that the third respondent misrepresented about his site and the survey number of his site is in fact 142/3 but not 142/1, the first respondent Corporation conducted enquiry and after examination of boundaries of the proposed site as per the registered sale deed and the report of the Land Evaluation Committee, came to the conclusion that there is neither misrepresentation nor suppression of fact by the third respondent and accordingly, rejected the complaint vide orders, dated 03.06.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the writ petition seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not taking immediate steps to cancel the letter of intent issued in favour of the third respondent, dated 21.01.2010 awarding Kisan Seva Kendra at Palakuru Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Kurnool District even though he failed to secure NOC from the District Collector, Kurnool, within time and also trying to change the location from Sy.No.142/1 to Sy.No.142/3, as illegal and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions raised on either side and examining the reports, dated 08.03.2010 and 24.05.2010, in which, the Tahsildar reported that the boundaries are tallying with the documents and physical features and that the third respondent validly purchased Ac.0.50 cents of land in Sy.No.142/1 under registered sale deed, dated 25.08.2009, recorded a finding that though there is a minor discrepancy in the sub-number because, on re- survey, the said land falls in Sy.No.142/3, and that the land offered by the third respondent and the land evaluated and selected is one and the same and as such there is hardly any case of misrepresentation, fraud or mistake on the part of the third respondent and that giving letter of intent in his favour cannot be interdicted in the writ petition and accordingly, dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the third respondent has given the survey number as 142/1 in his application and after the interviews and selections were completed, he produced a modified registered sale deed by changing the survey number as 142/3, which is contrary to the notification. He further contended that the first respondent ought not to have considered the modified registered sale deed produced by the third respondent. He further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the said aspects and therefore prays to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the learned Single Judge after examining all the pleas raised by the appellant rightly dismissed the Writ Petition and therefore there are no grounds to interfere with the same. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kaveti Srikanth, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the record. A reading of the impugned order would show that the first respondent Corporation after examining the boundaries of the third respondent’s site and the report of the Land Evaluation Committee has come to the conclusion that there is neither misrepresentation nor suppression of fact by the third respondent and more so the learned Single Judge recorded a finding that even if there is a minor discrepancy in the sub-number, it is evident that the land offered by the third respondent and the land evaluated and selected is one and the same and as such there is hardly any case of misrepresentation, fraud or mistake on the part of the third respondent. In view of the above circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: 28.12.2011 ES