THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20111 OF 2001 Dated 23rd January, 2007 Between: Emani Rami Reddy ….Petitioner And Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority rep. by Its Vice Chairman, Governorpet, Vijayawada And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20111 OF 2001 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in seeking to change the allotment of plot made to the petitioner from plot No. MIG B-167 to MIG B-165 as arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for invalidation of notice dated 10- 09-2001. The petitioner, who applied for allotment of a plot under the Chenchupet Integrated Urban Development Scheme (Indira Nagar) taken up by respondent No.1-authority, was allotted plot No. MIG B- 167 on an outright sale basis in pursuance of a draw conducted by it on 05-05-1984. After payment of the requisite amounts, sale deed dated 03-10-1988 was registered in favour of the petitioner, whereunder plot No.MIG B-167 was conveyed in favour of the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was asked to pay certain additional amounts, on the ground that prices were revised. The petitioner made those payments, in respect of which there is no dispute. By the impugned notice, respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that the plot sold to the petitioner bearing No. MIG B-167 is changed as MIG B-165 and the petitioner was called upon to pay the arrears of Rs.425/- towards the value of the excess area and file an undertaking agreeing for the proposed change. It is further mentioned therein that if the petitioner does not file such an undertaking, the allotment of plot will be cancelled as per the conditions of allotment. The notice contained the altered boundaries of the plot bearing No.MIG B-165. The petitioner assailed this notice in this writ petition. The Vice-Chairman of respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit, in which it is inter alia contended that there were 173 MIG plots in ‘B’ block, that the area covered under plots No. MIG 148 and 149 in ‘B’ block was reconveyed to the land owners in pursuance of the Court orders, that the allottees of the said plots were provided alternative plots in the lay out and that therefore renumbering was given to the remaining plots from 150 to 173 as 148 to 171. It is further averred that the allottee of plot No. MIG 153 in ‘B’ block filed a complaint before the District Forum, Guntur seeking registration of his plot as plot No.151 by retaining the physical plot as it was allotted, that the District Forum directed respondent No.1 to register the said plot as plot No.151, that the Secretary, Pattanabhivrudhi Nivasa Sthalamula Yajamanula Sankshema Sangham, Tenali, requested respondent No.1 to see that plots bearing old numbers and new numbers would be the same on ground position and that respondent No.1 convened a meeting with the allottees of plot numbers bearing MIG 148 to 173 on 10-04-2000 wherein some of the allottees raised objection that renumbering of the plots will disturb the position of the plots on ground and they requested to apply the decision of the District Forum to their plots also, so that the plot numbers will be changed, but physical position of the plots on ground will remain the same. It is further mentioned that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is a conditional one, where the petitioner agreed to the condition that the purchaser shall construct a building within a period of two years and that failure to do so would entail in cancellation of the allotment automatically and that the petitioner has not constructed the building even after the lapse of 13 years. Heard Sri A.V.Krishna Koundinya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt K.Aruna Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allotted plot No.MIG B-167 with specific boundaries and the property was also conveyed to him under a registered sale deed and that therefore, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to alter the schedule of the sale deed unilaterally and without the consent of the petitioner. Smt K.Aruna Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, submitted that what is proposed in the impugned notice is only change of plot number and not the physical location of the plot on ground. She invited my attention to the two sketches filed along with the counter-affidavit in support of her contention that the physical location of plot No.167 remained the same with proposed alteration of number as 165 instead of 167. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel. In the registered sale deed executed by respondent No.1 as far back as 03-10-1988, the schedule of the property is mentioned as under: “SCHEDULE Guntur District-Tenali Sub-District-Tenali Municipality- Chenchupeta nearer to Ward No. 1 nearer to Door No.10-8- 104. All the piece of land bearing plot No.MIG-B 167 in T.S.No.6/3/9 bounded as follows: North by :Plot No.MIG B 168 East by :Plot No.MIG B 164 South by :Plot No.MIG B 166 West by :30’ wide road” In between 288.88 yards 241.48 meters of site” However, in the impugned notice, the following boundaries are mentioned. “Boundaries Measurements East 60’ wide road 40’.0” South private property 65’.0” West Plot No.166 40’.0” North Plot No.164 65’.0” The learned Standing Counsel fairly admitted that there is variation in the boundaries shown in the impugned notice from those which are contained in the sale deed, but she, however, states that the boundaries in the sale deed do not reflect the correct position. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. Neither in the impugned notice nor in any proceeding issued earlier, by respondent No.1, such a stand was taken. Even in the counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 has not raised such a plea. When once the sale deed is registered, the boundaries contained therein cannot be unilaterally altered. Unless respondent No.1 initiates appropriate proceedings, if the same were permissible under any enactment either for alteration or for modification of the contents of the sale deed, the respondents cannot be permitted to contend that the boundaries of the plot conveyed to the petitioner can be altered without the consent of the petitioner. I have also not felt persuaded to accept the stand of respondent No.1 that what is proposed in the impugned notice is only alteration of number of the plot and not its physical location for more reasons than one. As already noticed above, there is a change of boundaries mentioned in the impugned notice, which are at variance with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. Apart from that, respondent No.1 supplied a copy of pro forma declaration of undertaking along with their letter dated 13-06-2000, which reads as under: “DECLARATION OF UNDERTAKING I……………S/o. W/o……………aged about………..years, residing at………………, Tenali do hereby solemnly affirm to agree and undertake as follows. I am the allottee of plot No………MIG/B………in IDSMT Scheme at Chenchupet, Tenali. I was allotted the same by letter No………….., Dt…….. from the VGTM UDA. I agree and consented to the changes regarding number, boundaries and measurements made to the said plot which are due to administrative and technical reasons by the VGTM Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada. I hereby declare and confirm that I have accepted to the changes and I also declare and confirm that I will abide by the changes made to the plot, rules and regulations of the VGTMUDA, Vijayawada.” From the above reproduced proposed undertaking the petitioner was asked to agree and consent to the changes regarding number, boundaries and measurements. The very fact that respondent No.1 sought to change the boundaries, clearly belies their contention that they have proposed only to change the number of the plot and not its physical location. So long as sale deed dated 03-10-1988 is not altered, in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot be compelled to agree for change of boundaries of the plot. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned notice dated 10-09-2001 is set aside. This order, however, does not preclude respondent No.1 from persuading the petitioner to agree for the change of number of the plot without changing the physical location of the plot on ground. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd January, 2008 vrn