IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11207 of 2003 Between: 1 A. Rani, W/o. Venkateshwar Rao, R/o. Nirmal Adilabad District 2 A. Venkateshwar Rao S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Ravi High School, Nirmal Adilabad District ..... PETITIONERS AND The Executive Engineer (Housing) A.P. Housing Board, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the proceedings in Lr.No. 12/HIG/OP/E4/KNTR/EE(Hg)-NZB/2003 dated 19-4-2003 issued by respondent and declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J.PRABHAKAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.11207 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioners are wife and husband. They are residents of Nirmal. Pursuant to a notiﬁcation issued in 1994 by the respondent inviting applications for allotment of 116 plots in Kanteshwar Colony, Nizamabad, the petitioners submitted applications for allotment of two plots. They made necessary down payment as per the notiﬁcation. By an order dated 12.07.1999 they were informed that they are entitled for only one plot and they were given option to select any one of the plots. Assailing the same, they ﬁled a writ petition, being W.P.No.16403 of 1999. This Court disposed of the matter on 19.11.2002 giving liberty to the petitioners to make detailed representation to the respondent, who was directed to pass appropriate orders as per the relevant rules. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted applications on 27.12.2002 and 08.03.2003. The respondent herein by impugned order dated 19.04.2003 informed the petitioners that their request for allotment of two plots cannot be considered in view of Rule 10(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1977 (the Rules, for brevity), and the petitioners were requested to give their consent to select any one of the plots. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that there is no prohibition in the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956, or the Rules, for allotment of a plot each to wife and husband. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on Rule 10(ii) of the Rules and submits that when once plot is allotted to either wife or husband, the other is not eligible for allotment. Rule 10 of the Rules reads as under. 10. No allotment shall be made if the applicant. (i) is not ordinarily resident in the area within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or concerned Municipality where the plots are situated for not less than 5 years immediately before the last date fixed for making application; (ii) Owns a house or plot within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or concerned Municipality in his or her own name or in the name his/her husband/wife, as the case may be, or in the name of his minor children. (iii) (a) has an annual income exceeding Rs.4,200 in case of Economically Weaker Sections. (b) has an annual income exceeding Rs.7,200 in the case of Low Income Group. (c) has an annual income exceeding Rs.18,000 and less than Rs.7,200 in the case of Middle Income Group. (d) has an annual income less than Rs.18,001 in case of High Income Group. (iv) has not got the requisite paying capacity. (v) Is less than eighteen years of age. (vi) Is not in a position to build the house on the plot without loan assistance from Government. Provided that this condition shall not be considered in case of applicant belonging to Schedule Caste, Scheduled Tribe and other Backward Classes. Provided further that the Chairman may, in his direction for suﬃcient reasons relax any of the provisions of this rule in favour of any applicant specially in the case of such applicant who is domiciled in Andhra Pradesh but has gone outside the State or abroad on employment business studies or training and who bonafidely intends to reside in the area within the limits of the concerned Municipal Corporation or Municipality where the plots are situated. A perusal of Rule 10(ii) of the Rules would show that an applicant would not be eligible for allotment if he owns house or plot within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or concerned Municipality in his or her own name or in the name of his/her husband/wife, as the case may be, or in the name of his minor children. When two applications are made by a married couple and one of them is allotted, the other would certainly become ineligible for allotment under Rule 10(ii) of the Rules. That is the plain meaning to be ascribed to Rule 10(ii) of the Rules. In that view of the matter, this Court does not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the impugned order. The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 19.09.2008 vs To 1 The Executive Engineer (Housing) A.P. Housing Board, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad 2 2CCs to 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}