THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23082 of 2011 Date:17.08.2011 Between: Cheda Nirmala ..... Petitioner AND The Vice-Chairman, Tirupati Urban Development Authority, Tirupati. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Smt S.A.V.Rathnam Counsel for Respondent : Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy Standing Counsel for TUDA The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings vide Roc.No.2584/C2/2007, dated 02.06.2011, of the respondent. I have heard Smt S.A.V.Rathnam, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The mother of the petitioner was allotted a house of LIG type bearing No.76 in Seshachalam Hill View Layout, Tirupati, vide proceedings in Roc.No.4098/A2/86, dated 16.03.1988. As per the terms of the allotment, the allottee has to pay the total cost of the house estimated at Rs.36,470/- in 46 quarterly instalments at the rate of Rs.501/- for each instalment. The original allottee is stated to have paid in all a sum of Rs.16,403/- up to 16.08.1989 and committed default in payment of the subsequent instalments. The original allottee is stated to have died on 30.10.1999. Since then the respondent has been making demands for payment of the balance amount. One such demands was subject matter of Writ Petition No.17094 of 2007 filed by the petitioner herein, wherein she has questioned the levy of penal interest of Rs.67,172/- and Rs.13,350/- towards delayed registration. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with the direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 13.07.2007, and pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In compliance of the said order, the respondent has passed the impugned order whereunder a sum of Rs.65,612/- is demanded towards interest on delayed payments. At the hearing, Smt S.A.V.Rathnam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that even though this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.17094 of 2007 observed that the respondent shall mention in the demand notice the clause under which penal interest is levied, no such reference is made. I have carefully perused the impugned order with reference to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In a detailed order, the respondent has referred under item-B “interest calculation at 9% for LIG -76 for delayed payment of instalments as per condition Nos.5-A and 5-B of proceedings 5th cited”. The 5th cited reference in the order relates to proceedings in Roc.No.4098/A2/86, dated 02.01.1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the said proceedings is the one under which allotment of house has been made. The petitioner has not filed the said proceedings. She has also not disputed existence of condition Nos.5-A and 5-B in the said proceedings, dated 02.01.1988. These conditions presumably stipulate payment of interest and the respondent has accordingly calculated interest in terms of these conditions. Such being the case, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has not complied with the observation of this Court with regard to the reference of the relevant clause while demanding interest. As the petitioner is seeking to challenge levy of interest, the initial burden lies on her to show that she is not liable to pay interest. The petitioner failed to discharge such burden. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the levy of interest by the respondent. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.28235 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 17th August, 2011 DR