THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1793 of 2007 ORDER: The Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Urban Development Authority constructed different categories of houses for providing the same to the eligible persons on hire purchase basis. The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of Lower Income Group (L.I.G.) house at Payakapuram, Vijayawada. Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.) of Rs.10,500/- was paid along with the application. The cost of the house at that time was stipulated at Rs.52,500/-. Later, on confirmation of the allotment, the petitioner was issued a demand notice dated 21.09.1994 to pay a sum of Rs.12,500/-, and that amount was paid within time. The balance was scheduled to be paid in monthly instalments spread, up to 2011. The petitioner states that she furnished her changed address at Hyderabad to the respondent for further communication. It is stated that when she did not hear anything from the respondent, she verified from them in the recent past and she came to know that the cost of the house was enhanced to Rs.65,000/- and though she is prepared to pay that amount with penal interest, the respondent is not acceding to her request for allotment and deliver of possession of the house. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit admitting that the petitioner was allotted an L.I.G. house and payment of Rs.10,500/- and Rs.12,500/-. It is, however, stated that though repeated notices were sent to the address furnished by the petitioner, there was no response. According to the respondent, allotment stood cancelled and that the house would be put to auction. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. There is no dispute as to the allotment of the house to the petitioner and payment of half of the consideration that was stipulated at that time. The petitioner, however, did not make any further payment on the ground that she did not receive any information. The respondent, on the other hand, pleads that the petitioner did not evince interest for the past several years. This is not a case, where the petitioner was delivered possession of the house and even while enjoying the same, she failed to pay the instalments. She was not inducted into possession at all. There is some lapse on her part in not pursuing the matter with required amount of promptitude. All the same, cancellation of allotment without her knowledge cannot take away her accrued right. The respondent does not stand to any loss in case the petitioner is required to pay the amount as per their relevant regulation. It is not in dispute that as per Regulation 28 of the terms and conditions of the scheme, allottee shall be entitled to be transferred the premises after recovery of full cost as per the terms and conditions of payment including interest and penal interest and other charges, if any, as may be intimated. By 17.03.2002, the amount with interest and penal interest is said to have come to Rs.1,26,840/-. In case the petitioner pays that amount with interest and penal interest on the same rate for subsequent period, there should not be any difficulty for the respondent to finalize the allotment and to execute the necessary documents. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to transfer the L.I.G. house allotted to the petitioner in the year 1994 on payment of Rs.1,26,840/- with interest and penal interest as per relevant condition from 01.04.2002 till the date of payment within a period of six weeks from today. In default, the allotment shall stand cancelled. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 07th June, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) GHN