THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1783 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard both sides. 2. The writ appeal is directed against the order, dated 24.09.2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petition No.9142 of 2004. 3. The said writ petition was filed seeking to declare the letter, dated 09.01.2004, issued by the first respondent directing the second respondent to conduct public auction of the writ petitioner’s house bearing Nos.10-1-573/1 and 10-1-573/2, situate in TIT Quarters, East Marredpalli, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary. 4. Appellants are the writ petitioners and respondents are the respondents in the said writ petition. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the said writ petition. 6. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the land in the same locality where the petitioners house was situate was being disposed of for a price of Rs.2,000/- per square yard. It appears that earlier, other lands around this locality were disposed of for a lesser sum also. Therefore, on that ground, the writ petitioners seek assignment of the said land at a cheaper price. 7. Learned single Judge taking note of the decision rendered in Abdul Irfan Amoodi Vs. Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (W.A.No.884 of 2006), dated 23.08.2006), whereby it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that no public authority can be compelled to sell its land or property to a citizen, dismissed the said writ petition. Even otherwise, such property if intended to be disposed of, the same can be only by way of public auction and not in any other way. Of course, that instances are in rare circumstances. 8. Further, the writ petitioners are only intending purchasers of the Government land. In other words, they are only making an offer for a sum of Rs.2,500/- per square yard to the Government. When it is not acceptable for the respondents, the same can be denied. There cannot any concluded contract nor the Government or the Government agency can be compelled to dispose of its property to a citizen for a particular price. 9. The theory of offer and acceptance is one thing that cannot be ignored, and as already pointed out, even otherwise, such sale is desirable to be made only by way of public auction. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, passed by the learned single Judge, warranting interference by this Court and accordingly, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from considering the request of the writ petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 26th December 2008 dr