*THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU + Writ Petition Nos.8048 of 2001 & 19790, 19795 and 22657 of 2006 % Dated: 30-12-2008. W.P. No.8048 of 2001 # The Housing Board Employees, IV Phase, Plot Allottes Welfare Association, rep. by its President Ravula Chalapathi Reddy, S/o Venkata Narasimha Redy, Aged 42 years, Assistant Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa Mozam Jahi Road, HYDERABAD … Petitioners $ The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & two others. … Respondents ! Counsel for petitioners: Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, Mr.M.Dhananjaya Reddy, Mr.Venkateswarlu Posani Mr.K.R.Prabhakar ^ Counsel for respondents: G.P. for General Administration Mr.J.Prabhakar G.P. for Housing The Advocate General < GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?Cases referred: 1. AIR 1990 AP 331 2. AIR 1979 SC 621 3. (1993) 1 SCC 71 4. (1984) 3 All ER 935 (H L) 5. (1985) 2 All ER 327 6. (1979) 4 SCC 602 7. (2003) 5 SCC 437 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU Writ Petition Nos.8048 of 2001 & 19790, 19795 and 22657 of 2006 WRIT PETITION NO : 8048 of 2001 Between: The Housing Board Employees, IV Phase, Plot Allottes Welfare Association, rep. by its President Ravula Chalapathi Reddy, S/o Venkata Narasimha Redy, Aged 42 years, Assistant Engineer, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa Mozam Jahi Road, HYDERABAD ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2. The Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, Mozamjahi Road, Hyderabad. 3. The Executive Engineer, Western Division, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad. ..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 a writ, order or direction particularly writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register the plots in Sy.No.964 and 1009 of Kukatpally village phase-IV lay out plan prepared for A.P.H.B. Employees’ Housing Scheme in the name of the individual members of the petitioner association in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2 Housing Department Dated 10-01-1991 and as allotted by the Board on 12-05- 1991 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION WRIT PETITION NO : 19790 of 2006 Between: 1 K.Madhava Reddy, s/o K.Lakshmi Kanth Reddy, r/o 16-1-483/14, Kranthi Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 2 M.Rama Koteswara Rao, s/o late M.Umamaheswara Rao, r/o 16/9, VI Phase, KPHB Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Housing (HB.II) Department, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.Housing Board, rep., by its Vice Chairman, Gruhakalpa, Mukaramjahi Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Engineer (Housing), Western Region, A.P.Housing Board, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.32 Housing (HB.II) Department, dt.12-9-2006 issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to register the Plot No.110 LIG and Plot No.162 LIG admeasuring 200 sq.yards each in Sy.No.1009 and 964 of Kukatpally in favour of the petitioners respectively, and to pass suchother order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOUSING WRIT PETITION NO : 19795 of 2006 Between: The Housing Board Employees IV Phase Plot Allottees Welfare Association, Rep. by its President Aged 46 yrs, Occ: Asst. Engineer APHB, Gruhakalpa, M.J. Market, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government Housing (HB.II) Department, 2 The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board , Gruhakalpa, M.J. Market, Hyderabad, Commissioner. 3 The Executive Engineer, Western Division, A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad. .....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 or direction declaring the G.O.Ms.No. 32 Housing (HB.II) Department dt. 12- 9-2006 as illegal arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent to register plots in Sy.no. 964 and 1009 of Kukatpally Village, Phase IV Layout plan prepared for APHB Employees Housing Scheme in the name of individual members of the petitioner association in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No. 2 Housing Department dt. 10-1-1991 and allotted by the Board on 12-5-1991 and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court feels deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOUSING AND WRIT PETITION NO : 22657 of 2006 Between: 1 P.Srinivasulu Naidu, S/o. Munuswami Naidu, A.P. Housing board, R/o.flat No.S2, Kalyani Residency, near Vasanth Emerld, Madhapur, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Vangala Ravinder Reddy, S/o.Joji Reddy, A.P. Housing Board, R/o. Plot No.504, Block D, Siddamsetti Apartments, Jawahar Nagar, Road No.5, Near RTC X roads, Hyderabad-20. 3 Solipuram Banuprakash Reddy, S/o. Sudershan Reddy, Plot No.206, S.V. Classic Apartments, Chaitanyapuri Colony, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Prl., Secy-housing, ( HB.II) Department, Secretarait, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P. Housing board, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Market, Nampally, Hyderabd, rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Housing Commissioner. 3 The Executive Engineer ( Western Division), A.P. Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Market, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaring the G.O.Ms.No.32, Housing ( H.B.II) Department, dt. 12.9.2006 in canceling the allotment of house plots to the Petitioners herein as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminatory, in violation of principles of natural justice, apart from being without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same with a further direction to the Respondents herein to register the plots in our names and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.R.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following : HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU W.P.Nos. 8048 of 2001 & 19790, 19795 and 22657 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents to register the plots in Sy.Nos.964 and 1009 of Kukatpally village in Phase-IV of the lay out plan prepared for A.P.H.B. Employees Housing Scheme in the individual names of the Housing Board Employees in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.2, Housing Department, dated 10-01-1991 and for cancellation of the allotment of flats in G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09- 2006. 2. All the writ petitions are filed seeking the same relief against the same respondents, therefore, they are clubbed and heard together and this common order is passed. 3. The averments of the Affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions are briefly as under: The petitioners are the members of the A.P. Housing Board Employees Phase-IV plot allottees Welfare Association represented by its President, Hyderabad. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners contended that the said Association was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Public Registered Societies Act, 1950 with registered No.4567 of 2000. The members of the Association are the employees of the A.P. Housing Board and they are allotted plots in phase-IV of the lay out at Kukatpally. In the year 1988, NGOs union of the A.P. Housing Board made a representation to the Board requesting for allotment of developed plots on the same analogy as was allotted to the Board employees on earlier occasions. The Board in its meeting, dated 29-07-1998 resolved to recommend to the Government to accord permission to allot 115 MIG, 181 LIG and 24 EWS plots to 320 employees in an extent of 13 acres of land situated at Kukatpally @ Rs.45/- per square yard including the cost of the land and development charges subject to the condition that no employee shall sell away the land and if there is any violation the land will be resumed by the Government. The Government was pleased to consider the request of the Board and accorded permission to allot plots to 320 employees on the southern side of phase IV of Kukatpally @ 45/- per square yard in G.O.Ms.No.2, Housing Department, dated 10-01-1991. Accordingly, the individual plots were allotted to all the 320 members on 12-05-1991 and in Circular No.19407/EM.4/RHE:WD/88, dated 09-09-1991 directed the Regional Engineers and other drawing and disbursement officers to recover the cost of the plots and its development charges at Rs.300/- per month per MIG and Rs.265/- per LIG and Rs.1500/- per EWS respectively in 30 monthly instalments. The cost and development charges are recovered from all the allottees by 1994. The Housing Board, while sending proposals to the Government, indicated plot areas of MIG on 233 square yards, LIG 200 square yards and EWS at 111 square yards, which was worked out to 13 acres of lay out plan approved by the Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner on 31-03-1989. The actual area covered by the plots is worked out to 13.66 acres excluding the road, parks play grounds etc. and as such the matter was placed before the Board in its 423rd meeting held on 29-06-1992 and the Board has resolved to approach the Government for necessary amendment to G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01-1991. As the land is under the control of the Board, the Secretary to the Government directed Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner to take action by himself. Thereafter, the Board in its 449th meeting held on 24-08-1995 resolved to allot Ac.26.541 of land to the employees of the Board at Rs.116/- per square yard against Rs.45/- which was approved earlier and the enhanced amount is also recovered from the employees. The Housing Board has to get the plots registered in the name of allottees. At this stage, the first respondent interfered with the decision of the Board and directed the Board not to register any plots in Phase-IV in favour of the A.P.H.B. Employees in terms of Board Resolution in 463 and 464 meetings till the Government gives a clear direction. Basing on such direction, the second respondent instructed the third respondent not to take further action to get the plots registered in the name of the allottees pending further orders in the matter. The Principal Secretary to Government, without considering that the allotment was made in the year 1991, raised an objection on the ground that the present market value is at Rs.3,000/- per square yard, whereas the allotment was made at Rs.116/- per square yard. It was also mentioned that the land allotted was not suitable even for residential purpose. When the surrounding areas are developed after a gap of more than 10 years, the prevailing rate is found to be more and that cannot be a ground to stop registration when the entire sale consideration is collected by the Board. There is no dispute with regard to eligibility of the allottees and the Government itself has accorded permission in G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10-01- 1991 for allotment of plots after considering the representation and after collecting the sale consideration. The allottees are poor employees and they have contributed their hard earned money with a fond hope of getting a plot, which would be an asset to them. The first respondent, having accorded permission through G.O.Ms.No.2, is estopped from raising any objection for registration of the plots and the direction not to register plots till the Government takes a clear decision in the issue is illegal and arbitrary. The Housing Board is not a profit making organization. It cannot do business in selling plots at higher rates. The Government having formulated a scheme contemplated under Regulation 21 of the A.P. Housing Board Act to allot plots to the employees of the Board and having issued G.O.Ms.No.2 to that effect, it is not open to the first respondent to interfere with the scheme detriment to the interests of the employees. Similar schemes were approved by the Government in the years 1979 and 1983 and all the employees, who were working and eligible as on the respective dates, were allotted. The present petitioners are some of the employees left over under the old schemes and joined in the service of the Board later. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court through these writ petitions requesting for the reliefs as prayed for. 4. In the subsequent writ petitions filed in 2006, it is contended that subsequent to the direction by the first respondent not to register the plots in favour of the individual employees, the Government constituted a cabinet sub committee to examine the issue and after the report of the sub committee, appropriate orders will be issued in the matter. After examining the issue, the cabinet Committee submitted a report favouring allotment of house sites to the Housing Board employees. The sub committee report was placed before the cabinet for approval on 01-04- 2005 and the cabinet approved the recommendations of the sub committee. While so, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12- 09-2006 canceling the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.2. It was further mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.32 that the Government permits the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner, A.P. Housing Board to construct and allot individual flats to the 320 employees of the Board who were earlier allotted individual plots. It is further mentioned that the allotment will be at the current rate of construction without charging the land cost and also interest @ 20 % per annum will be paid by the A.P. Housing Board on the amount paid by the employees initially towards land cost and approval of the Housing Board shall be obtained by the Vice Chairman. The above G.O. issued by the first respondent is arbitrary, illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. G.O.Ms.No.2 has been acted upon and vested right has been given in favour of the members of the society. When once the G.O. has been accepted, it is not open to the first respondent to cancel the same at this length of time. No notice has been issued and no opportunity has been given to the members before passing the impugned order. The power to cancel the G.O., when there is no allegation of any misrepresentation on the part of the employees, has not been conferred on the first respondent. The action of the first respondent in cancelling the earlier G.O. is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Board has followed the parameters as laid down in the Act and has fixed the market value by keeping in view the then prevailing rates. The Board is the ultimate authority to fix the market value and the Government having delegated the power to the Board to take decision in the matter through the letter, dated 28-06-1994, it is not open to the first respondent to pass the impugned order after a decision has been taken by the Board. Had the decision been taken by the first respondent in the year 1990 itself, the members would have purchased other plots or would have applied in the open category for allotment of plots. The amount that is now being offered to the members of the petitioner-association cannot be a just compensation as it has no relevancy to the present market value of the property, therefore, prayed for the reliefs as mentioned above. 5. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit with the following averments in brief: The petitioners must prove the allegations in the writ petitions. The A.P. Housing Board conducted a demand survey among the employees who were appointed on or before 31-12-1984. In response to a Circular issued, 320 applications were received from employees in different categories. The A.P. Housing Board through the Resolution, dated 29-07- 1988 resolved to recommend to the Government to accord permission for allotment of 320 sites. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 10- 01-1991 according permission as a special case for allotment of house plots to 320 employees of the Housing Board in an extent of 13 acres with certain conditions. After receipt of the Government Orders, the drawal of the land was conducted and the allotment proceedings were issued to the employees to pay cost of the land and development charges @ Rs.45/- per square yard. As per the request of the NGOs union, the amount was collected in 30 monthly instalments from the salaries of the employees commencing from August, 1991. While submitting the proposals to the Government, the extent of allotted area was shown as 13 acres, whereas the total area in the layout measured at 26.541 cents including the area covered by the roads, parks, playgrounds etc., therefore, the matter was placed before the Board for consideration for allotment of 26.541 acres. The Board in its 423rd meeting held on 29-06-1992 passed a Resolution to approach the Government for necessary amendment to the G.O. by substituting 26.541 acres in the place of 13 acres. The Government, through its letter, dated 28-06-1994 informed that the matter need not come to the Government. The Vice Chairman of the Housing Board may take necessary action to decide at his level as the proposed land is under the control of the Board. After receipt of the orders from the Government, the matter was placed before the Board and the Board in its 449th meeting held on 24-08-1995 resolved to amend the G.O. and proposed to collect the amount @ 116/- per square yard towards cost of the land including development charges. But, the Resolution was not communicated to the employees and the difference of amount was not collected since the lay out was under the process of approval. When the minutes of the Board are communicated, the Principal Secretary to the Housing Board directed the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner not to register the plots in Phase-IV in favour of the Housing Board employees in terms of the Board Resolution till the Government issued clarification and takes a clear decision on the issue. The Government in D.O. letter informed the Vice Chairman that the plots at Kukatpally were sold at Rs.80/- per square yard in the year 1983-84 and it was decided by the Board to sell the land at Rs.116/- per square yard in 2001 when the land auctioned by the Housing Board is fetching more than Rs.3000/- per square yard, therefore, it is not appropriate to sell away A.P. Housing Board lands at throw away prices. The matter has been examined by the Government and it is tentatively decided to constitute a cabinet sub committee to examine the issue and appropriate orders will be issued after taking a decision in the matter. 6. The counter filed by the respondents 2 and 3 is also on the similar lines and further pleaded that as the matter is under the active consideration of the Government, the writ petitions are premature and misconceived. 7. By taking into consideration the subsequent developments and filing of writ petitions in 2006 on fresh cause of action, the first respondent filed counter by contending that the cabinet sub committee recommended that the land already allotted to the employees of the Housing Board may be registered @ Rs.204/- per square yard including the development charges as approved by the A.P. Housing Board subject to the condition that if any increase in developmental charge over and above Rs.204/- per square yard arises at the time of execution, it is to be borne by the employees themselves. The Council of Ministers has approved the recommendations of the cabinet sub committee, through the Resolution, dated 01-04-2005 by directing that the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.244, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 28-02-2005 is applicable to the case of Housing Board employees also. After Resolution of the cabinet sub committee, the Government asked the Vice Chairman to submit necessary proposals incorporating the conditions as per G.O.Ms.No.244 and the Vice Chairman submitted the same in May, 2005. While the matter stood thus, the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner has submitted a revised proposal in December, 2005 with a request to cancel all the allotments and to provide houses in the proposed Hydernagar scheme for the following reasons: 1. Only 103 people have paid the full amount asked for and 217 people have not paid the full amount asked for; 2. Whereas the G.O. referred to in the cabinet decision relates to payment of market value as per the basic value, what has been collected from these employees are in the nature of only a fraction of market value such as Rs.5/- against market value of Rs.180/-; 3. Several people have bought by way of either concessional allotment of outright purchase flats. 4. Several people have retired in the meantime and died and some have been removed from the service; 5. To give semblance of fairness, we have sent proposals for Administering the scheme. But it appears that it is quite difficult to administer. 8. The Government examined the proposals of the Vice Chairman-cum-Housing Commissioner and placed before the Council of Ministers for approval. The Council of Ministers approved the revised proposal on 01-04-2005 by observing that the revised proposal submitted by the second respondent is laudable and the same has been examined and approved by the Government with reference to various aspects by issuing G.O.Ms.No.32, dated 12-09-2006. There is no discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, therefore, the first respondent requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. The respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter by making the averments similar to the counter filed by the first respondent and further pleading that it is important to know that 26 acres of land was never cleared by the Government and it required the approval of the Government before any kind of allotment could be done and the original is modified and hence, the original approval of the Government completely stood nullified in the background of the revised proposal as well as Government order not to register the plots. The Government, after due deliberations, thought it prudent to take it to the cabinet for the withdrawal of the scheme without jeopardising the interests of the employees by giving 20% interest on the amount paid by them and also by giving plots at the cost of construction only without charging for the land cost. On a letter addressed by the Housing Board on 16-10-2000 for payment of the difference amount, only 60 members paid the amount. It is incorrect to state that the second respondent stopped receiving the amount on the ground that the first respondent gave direction not to register the plots in favour of the allottees. The proposal for allotment of lands in favour of the employees is contrary to the provisions of A.P. Housing Board Act and the employees have no right for allotment of any such land from the Board. Since the Housing Board took some steps for allotment of plots, it felt that the concerned employees should not be deprived of the enjoyment of the house property and it is with this avowed intention and object that the Housing Board proposed to make alternative arrangements for its employees and decided to charge the construction cost only without charging any cost for the land. The interest of the parties would be better served by implementing G.O.Ms.No.32 and the construction would be taken up on a time bound framework, therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The Government made the Applicants to believe that the it will allot the land and the Housing Board will register the plots in their