THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1982 OF 2004 DT.21.4.2011 Between: Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada and another … Petitioners And Pattanabhi Vrudhi Nivasha Stalamula Yagamanaula Sankshema Sangam,Guntur and ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr M Prabhakar Rao, Counsel for respondents 1 to 8: Mr M Rama Rao Counsel for respondent no.81 : G P for Municipal Administration The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1982 OF 2004 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The appellants herein are Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada and another officer in the said authority. They are aggrieved against the judgment of the learned single Judge in W P No. 22480 of 1999 dated 22.1.2004 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents 1 to 81 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought for writ of mandamus interalia seeking to declare the action of the respondents/appellants herein in seeking to cancel the allotment of building plots situated at Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur on the ground that they have not paid penal amount and interest and committed default and without giving any benefit of interest amount accrued on the deposits made by them and also not extending the benefit of payment on the same basis which has been charged for the newly allotted members i.e., EWS-A1, A2,A5, LIG-A9, A-10, MIG.B-150 in 1998 fixing the rate without including the penal amount and interest on default as illegal and void and for consequential reliefs. Heard Mr M Prabhakar Rao, learned standing counsel for appellants , learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Mr M Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents/writ petitioners. In brief, all the writ petitioners claim to be the allottees of the plots in different categories, who have paid the EMD as well as the amounts fixed for respective groups of plots forming part of land acquired by the appellant authorities in the year 1980 for the purpose of developing and dividing into plots. After due lay-out, 1328 plots were made out in three different categories viz., Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), Low Income Group(LIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG), initially fixing the rate at Rs.54/-, Rs.60/- and Rs.80/- per square yard respectively. In the meanwhile, the owners of the land sought for reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation and accordingly the Reference Court as per its orders dated 22.9.1991 enhanced the market rate from Rs.21,700/- to Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. This was taken as basis once again by the appellants to enhance the amount towards cost of the plots. Accordingly, the appellants fixed a further amount of Rs,5/- , Rs.6/- and Rs.7/- respectively per square yard for the three different categories. However, as against the enhancement of the market value, the matter was carried in appeal to this Court and this Court has further enhanced the market rate from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,13,740/-. Aggrieved thereby, the matter was further carried to Supreme Court and the Supreme Court by its orders dated 29.4.1997 reduced the market rate to Rs.50,000/- per acre. In the meanwhile, certain proceedings were initiated on 7.1.1993 alleging non payment of amounts towards betterment charges and security. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court the cost of plot was again revised in the meeting held on 23.9.1997 and fixed at Rs.194/-, Rs.214/- and Rs.234/- per square yard respectively. This was found variation with in the later decision taken by the appellants on 5.11.1997 where the rate was reduced drastically by Rs.20/- per square yard for all the categories of plots and extending the benefit of payment of interest @ 15 % on the amount paid by them towards consideration excluding EMD amount. Thereupon, the second appellant herein as per the intimation given on 24.8.1999 directed the writ petitioners/respondents to deposit the balance consideration together with a penal fee of Rs.5,000/-, however, the benefit of payment of interest @ 15 % was not extended. It was further pointed out that in the later allotment of plots made by the very same authorities, there is no such levy of additional amount and therefore they are being discriminated, hence the writ petition. Denying the entire allegations as contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the case of the appellants herein was that the cost of the plots varies from time to time in view of the variation in regard to the market rate fixed by the Courts at different levels in hierarchy. However, in spite of such fixation, the writ petitioners did not comply and therefore they are not entitled to any indulgence, therefore as per the resolution dated 5.11.1997 the plots can be allotted to those who have paid the entire consideration and not to others. Considering the respective submissions, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that in view of the substantial reduction in the market rate as fixed by the Supreme Court and especially in view of the similar benefit which has been given to subsequent allottees in the year 1997-98, there is no justification and there is act of discrimination and therefore there cannot be any levy of interest and payment as sought to be made and denying the allotment of plots as already provided for. Further it was held that non payment of balance was not on their refusal but it was on account of the uncertainity that prevailed till 1997 in the matter of fixation of compensation for the land by the Courts. It was further held that denial of interest as provided under resolution dated 5.11.1997 was not given effect to, therefore it amounts to clear discrimination, hence, there is no justification in the action on the part of the appellants herein and ultimately direction was given setting aside the impugned proceedings with a further direction to second respondent to finalise allotment in favour of writ petitioner on their payment of balance consideration at the rate fixed by the second respondent vide its resolution dated 5.11.1997 and to extent the benefit of payment of interest @ 15 % on the part payment excluding EMD. It was also directed that as and when the second respondent informs the petitioners about the amount to be paid, petitioners shall deposit the same within four weeks from such intimation. Hence, the present appeal. Though several contentions are urged on behalf of the appellants which are rebutted by the respondents herein, the only question which boils down for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances, there is any justification to make any such payment against the writ petitioner or any action in making allotment afresh at later date without insisting upon similar such amounts, is discriminatory? There is no dispute with the aforesaid checkered events and there is also no dispute that the writ petitioners are initially allotted the plots and have made substantial payments. There is no dispute to the fact that initially the market rate was fixed at Rs.21,700/- and the same was enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/- and ultimately at the Supreme Court level it was slashed down to Rs.50,000/- per acre, therefore, it is not the case where there has been enhancement in the ultimate decision in fixing the market rate to such a quantum which really requires any further imposition on the allottees. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellants have not properly considered in view of the slashing down of market rate to Rs.50,000/- per acre from Rs.1,13,740/- i.e., less than half, therefore it cannot be said that allottes are to be imposed with any liability. The appellants have not come out with any details nor furnished any details as to how such enhancement could be made at such rates and also claim that they are entitled to make any such demand towards penal charges or even the interest In M Padmavathi Vs. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority[1][1], Division Bench of this Court while considering Article 14 of the Constitution of India in respect of a public action, which has been cited across the bar to contend that this Court would not venture to go into all these aspect of policy and no relief can be granted, however, on reading of the entire decision, we are of the view that the facts in the said decision are totally different from that of the present situation, inasmuch as in the present case there has been allotment and payment and further it is a case of clear discrimination among similarly situated persons, therefore Article 14 clearly applies to the facts of the present case. There is no dispute seriously on the part of the appellants herein that in the subsequent allotment made in the year 1997 no demand is made nor any interest is insisted upon. Further there is no reason as pointed out as to why in the later allotment, such demand is not being made, whereas, same being insisted upon against earlier allottees/writ petitioner. In the absence of the same, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the impugned action of the appellants is in the teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and liable to be set aside. We are in entire agreement with the detailed reasons given by the learned single Judge and the ultimate conclusions as arrived thereby. No other material has been put forth by the appellants herein nor any other aspect has been pointed out to come to a different conclusion. We do not find any merits in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J DATE:21 -04-2010 TVK [1][1] 2006 (5) ALT 722