THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11890 OF 2004 O R D E R: The petitioner, which is a Piece Goods Dealers Association of Kurnool, filed this writ petition seeking directions by way of Mandamus declaring Clause III of the tender notice issued in Roc No.8729/2004/A1 published in Eenadu daily newspaper dated 16.06.2004 of Kurnool Edition as illegal and arbitrary and sought for a consequential direction to the respondents not to consider the applications received pertaining to the said Clause of the tender notice. By the aforesaid tender notice, respondent No.2-Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, invited bids for construction of four shops each on the ground and first floor at the vacant place of sanitary division building situated at Old Bus Stand, Kurnool. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner-Association that as there was no sufficient space for the cloth merchants, it made an application to respondent No.1- District Collector on 10.11.1995 to allot land in Survey No.35/5C1 A10- A2 to build a shopping complex and it requested the Government to allot the land which is left unused at Kurnool bus stand, which is part of the above said survey number and as part of it was also allotted to Kurnool Gold Smiths’ Association. Acting upon the said application, the Government issued directions to the respondents to process proposals for alienating Ac.0.49 cents of land in favour of the petitioner-Association at the value at which it was allotted to the Goldsmiths’ Association. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool, by proceedings dated 25.11.1995, communicated to respondent No.1 to obtain a resolution from respondent No.2 to take necessary action for alienation of Ac.0.49 cents of land in the said survey number. The general body of the Kurnool Municipal Corporation passed a resolution dated 30.12.1995, recommending for alienation of the land in favour of the petitioner- Association. Respondent No.2 requested the Government to cancel the said resolution. The Government passed an order in G.O.Rt.No.54, dated 22.01.1998, cancelling the resolution dated 30.12.1995. Questioning the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16156 of 1998 and the said writ petition was allowed setting aside the order of the Government issued in G.O.Rt.No.54. It is the case of the petitioner-Association that in view of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.16156 of 1998, the earlier resolution passed by the general body of the Kurnool Municipal Corporation stands revived and as such, there is no authority or jurisdiction for respondent No.2 to issue tender notice inviting bids for construction on the piece of land which is proposed to be allotted to it, on collecting the market value. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that the Government by its memo dated 29.09.1995 requested respondent No.1 to send proposals for alienation of Ac.0.49 cents of land in favour of the petitioner-Association at the value at which the site was allotted to the Goldsmiths’ Association, Kurnool. Respondent No.1, in turn, addressed letter to respondent No.2 to send council’s resolution for alienation of land to the extent of Ac.0.49 cents in Survey No.35/5C1 A10-A2 in favour of the petitioner-Association. It is stated further that subsequently it came to light that earlier, the Government itself issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.1227 dated 09.10.1979 wherein it had alienated Acs.2.70 cents of Government land situated in Survey No.35/5C1 A10-A2 to the erstwhile Kurnool Municipality, but due to ignorance of the above fact, the general body passed resolution dated 30.12.1995 recommending for alienation of Ac.0.49 cents in favour of the petitioner-Association. While generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the said piece of land is a valuable land belonging to the Municipal Corporation, which is required for the Corporation itself for constructing shopping complex for augmentation of financial resources. It is further stated that allotment of land to Goldsmiths’ Association is no ground for the petitioner to seek directions to declare the tender notice as illegal. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. I have perused the copy of the resolution dated 30.12.1995, passed by the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. The resolution with regard to the land in question is not a resolution allotting the land in favour of the petitioner-Association. The said resolution is a resolution pursuant to the letter addressed by respondent No.1 recommending for allotment of land to the extent of Ac.0.49 cents in favour of the petitioner-Association. As such, the said resolution cannot be equated to an allotment by the Municipal Corporation. From the averments in the counter-affidavit, it is clear that a letter was addressed by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 to send council’s resolution for alienation of land in favour of the petitioner-Association. At the first instance, the Municipal Corporation passed the resolution, recommending for allotment in favour of the petitioner-Association, ignorant of the fact that the land was allotted to the erstwhile Kurnool Municipality by the Government. But subsequently it appears that it was found that the extent of Acs.2.17 cents including the land of Ac.0.49 cents, on which the claim is made by the petitioner, was already alienated in favour of the Kurnool Municipal Corporation through their erstwhile Municipality, vide G.O.Ms.No. 1227 dated 09.10.1979. As much as it is clear from the counter-affidavit that the land in question which the petitioner has claimed for transfer, by way of alienation, is already allotted to the Kurnool Municipal Corporation, the petitioner cannot question the impugned tender notice issued by respondent No.2, based on the resolution dated 30.12.1995. When the land is already allotted to the municipality, title of which is succeeded by the Kurnool Municipal Corporation, it is for the said Corporation to utilise the land for augmentation of financial resources to improve their revenues. In any event in the absence of any order for transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner-Association either by the council or by the Government, no grounds are available to the petitioner to assail the validity of the impugned tender notice. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in Clause III of the impugned tender notice. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner-Association from making any application for allotment of any other Government land, if it is available, and if such an application is made, it is equally open to the respondents to consider the same in accordance with the policy in vogue. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated 9th September, 2009 vrn