HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.25822 of 2001 Order: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays this Hon’ble Court that an order, direction or a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the sale of 84.46 sq. yards of land abutting House No.101/C (MCH 22-2-505) in B.N. Umra Colony, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad, at the rate of Rs.1,920/- per sq. yard and and collection of encroachment fee vide Sale Certificate No.1235/2000dt.16-11-2000 as unconscionable, arbitrary and atrocious. (ii) That the respondent be directed to convey the land at the rate at which similarly placed pieces of land were sold in the year 2001 vide Sale Certificate No.1144/2001, 1207/2001 and 1278/2001 and to return the balance amount with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of sale certificate upto the date of return of the money.” 2. There is a residential colony in a place called Noorkhan Bazar, in Hyderabad, which is named as B.N. Umra colony, constructed by the erstwhile Hyderabad City Improvement Board (under the Nizam Government) during the year 1940 for rehabilitation of poor and middle class citizens whose houses were destroyed in floods. Though, initially the houses in the said colony were let out on rental basis, subsequently the Government agreed to sell the said houses to the tenants and allowed them to pay the sale price in installments. By virtue of enactment of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956, the erstwhile Hyderabad City Improvement Board was abolished and all its assets, debts, obligations etc., are transferred to the Housing Board. Many of the allottees, who purchased the said houses were found to have been in encroachment of some open spaces in between road margins and their houses. There were representations for sale of such pieces of land to them. Initially, 40-feet wide roads were proposed, but when representations were received for allotment of land to the purchasers of the houses, having felt that 40-feet wide roads were not necessary for internal roads, the respondent-Board decided to sell the said pieces of land and addressed to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The petitioner is one of the allottees in the colony, who purchased house bearing No.101-C. Pursuant to representation for sale of such encroached portions by the allottees, a survey was conducted. During the said survey, it was found that the petitioner, apart from the encroachment of the land of the Housing Board in front of his house, has also encroached upon the dead end road portion to an extent of 84.46 sq. yards. For the sale of the aforesaid land, there was a lot of correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent- Board and ultimately the petitioner agreed to purchase the said piece of land at the rate of Rs.1,920/- per sq. yard. Apart from the payment of the said agreed price, he has also paid the encroachment fees and on payment of total amount of Rs.1,62,164/-, sale certificate was issued in his favour, which was registered on 16-11-2000. 3. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that subsequent to the sale in his favour at the rate of Rs.1,920/- per sq. yard, similarly placed persons were sold the land in front of their houses, in the same colony, at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. yard; as such there was discrimination in alienating the land to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,920/- per sq. yard. Pleading such discrimination, he seeks directions to declare the action of the respondent-Board in fixing the rate of the land sold to him at the rate of Rs.1,920/- per sq. yard as illegal and also consequential directions for refund of excess amount collected from him, with interest at the rate of 24 percent per annum. 4. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavits are filed on behalf of the respondent-Board. Though the said counter affidavits are lengthy, explaining reasons for sale of pieces of land in question, precisely, it is the defence of the respondent-Board that the land sold to the petitioner and the pieces of land sold to other allottees in the colony are not comparable. It is stated that the lands sold to other allottees are small extents which are situated in front of their houses, having no other independent access except to the owners of the houses. As such, it is their case that the sale of land to the petitioner is not comparable to other sales. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that so far as the petitioner is concerned, the land in front of his house is only to an extent of 11.11 sq. yards and the petitioner has encroached upon 84.46 sq. yards at the dead end road portion, in addition to the land in front of his house. It is also stated that, by encroaching upon such dead end road portion of the land, the petitioner has constructed some rooms over the same; as such it was decided to sell the same to the petitioner. 5. Heard Sri B.V. Bakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. Ranganatha Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. 6. In support of the plea of the petitioner that he was discriminated in charging at the rate of Rs.1,920/- per sq. yard, the petitioner relied on three sale certificates issued for sale of land in the colony, wherein sale consideration was fixed at Rs.300/- per sq. yard. One such sale certificate is dated 30-10-2001 for sale of 44.44 sq. yards of land in front of the house of Smt. Butoolunisa Begum, for the land in front of her house bearing No.92/C, which was sold at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. yard. In another certificate dated 30-11-2001, an extent of 21.58 sq. yards was sold to one Sri Mazhar Ali Khan, which piece of land was in front of his house bearing No.93/C. Similarly, another piece of land admeasuring 16.66 sq. yards was sold to one Sri Syed Ali Raza, which is in front of House No.105/C, at the rate of Rs.300 per sq. yard. Relying on the aforesaid sales, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the purchasers covered by the aforesaid sale certificates though stand on the same footing, the petitioner was charged at the rate of Rs.1,920/- per sq. yard whereas the other purchasers in the aforesaid sale certificates were sold pieces of land at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. yard. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his argument, has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu and another[1], wherein the Supreme Court, speaking for majority, has held that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Learned counsel has also relied on another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others,[2] wherein the Supreme Court has held that when tenders are invited, standard of eligibility laid down in the notice for tenders, cannot be departed from arbitrarily and any such departure will amount to denial of opportunity. In the said judgment, it is further held that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas of licences or granting otherf orms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a parivate individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. Learned counsel has also relied on two other judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir[3] and United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Manubhai Dharmasinhbhai Gajera and others[4]. 8. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned standing counsel for the respondent-Board that the land which is sold to the petitioner is not comparable at all to that of the land sold to other encroachers, so as to plead discrimination. It is submitted that an offer was made to the petitioner for sale of 11.11 sq. yards of land in front of his house, but he, himself, applied for allotment of 83 sq. yards of land at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. yard. It is submitted that pursuant to the application of the petitioner, when it was found that he has already encroached upon the dead end road portion and constructed rooms therein, municipal authorities were addressed in that regard and finally the request of the petitioner for allotment of the entire piece of land admeasuring 84.46 sq. yards was considered and it was decided to sell the same at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per sq. yard. Thereafter, when the petitioner requested to reduce the price, considering the request of the petitioner, market value of the land was arrived at Rs.1920/- and the petitioner has agreed to purchase the said piece of land at the said rate and paid the consideration. It is submitted that, having paid the said amount, it is not open to the petitioner to seek refund of the amount at this point of time, by comparing the piece of land sold to him with other pieces of land, which are not at all comparable, for fixation of price. 9. With reference to the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel, the only aspect which is required to be considered is, whether any discriminative treatment is meted out to the petitioner in charging higher rate, i.e. Rs.1,920/- per sq. Yard, to the piece of land allotted to him by the respondent-Board, when compared to the sale price of Rs.300 per sq. yard covered in the sale certificates referred above. When the residential colony was constructed for rehabilitation of flood victims, 40-feet wide spaces were left towards roads. But, subsequently, it appears, tenants in whose favour houses were sold have encroached upon land in front of their houses and road margins. In view of the representation submitted by the allottee-purchasers and as the extents were less than 100 sq. yards, in view of the no-objection expressed by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the respondent- Board decided to sell the said encraoched pieces of land which was in front of the houses of the allottees. As the said pieces of land were not having access to any other person, as such, the same were sold at the rate of Rs.300 per sq. yard. So far as the petitioner is concerned, initially, it was noticed that only 11.11 sq. yards was encroached by him in front of his house, but subsequently, he made request for sale of 83 sq. yards of land which includes not only the land in front of his house, but the land which he has encroached at the dead end road portion, which is in his occupation. After filing such representation, when it was found that he has encroached upon the dead end road portion, apart from the piece of land in front of his house, and taking into account the structures raised by him, respondent-Board offered to sell the said piece of land to the petitioner. After lot of correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent-Board, ultimately, the petitioner agreed to purchase the said piece of land at the rate of Rs.1,920/- per sq. yard and having paid the total sale consideration of Rs.1,62,164/-, he got the sale certificate registered in his favour. Having accepted the said price for the land which is sold to him, which was found to be in his possession at the dead end of the road, he cannot plead discrmination by comparing the rates which were charged to him and others, who are not on similar footing. So far as other sales are concerned, the said pieces of land which were found to be encroached upon were in front of their houses and they are not having any independent access for any other person other than the allottees. In view of the same, by comparing such pieces of land which are not comparable having regard to location, the petitioner cannot plead discrimination and seek relief for refund of the excess amount. The piece of land which is sold to the petitioner is like an independent house-site which has a separate accesss for utility. In such a factual scenario, there is no basis for the discrmination pleaded by the petitioner, seeking refund of the amount. With regard to encroachment fee, it is to be noted that though initially there was move to charge encroachment fee from November, 1987, but based on the representation filed by the petitioner, the same was charged only from October, 1994; as such, the petitioner, having agreed and paid the said amount, cannot seek refund of the saidamount paid by him. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there is no discrimination on the part of the respondent-Board in fixing the price at the rate of Rs.1920/- for the land sold to the petitioner as the sales effected in favour of other purchasers are not comparable sales as enumerated hereinabove. 11. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 25, 2009 MRR [1] (1974) 4 SCC 3 [2] (1979) 3 SCC 489 [3] (1980) 4 SCC 1 [4] (2008) 10 SCC 2004