IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 5052 of 1998 BETWEEN: K. Ramalinga Reddy, S/o. Chandra Reddy, R/o. H.No.16-2- 701/5/16, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, H. No. 1-8-323, Paiga Palace, Police Lines, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings R.c.No.107/94/HUDA/EMU/88, dated 02/04/1986 canceling the allotment of Plot No. 107, Category I phase IV of Vanasthalipuram as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent herein to receive the balance installments and register the plot in petitioner's favour and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A. RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent: SC FOR HUDA The Court made the following: ORDER: None appears. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the paper publication inviting the public attention regarding the sale of plots by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), he offered his willingness to purchase the plot bearing No.107, Category IV/1 and paid a sum of Rs.18,820/- towards the initial payment being 20% of the cost of the said plot on 04.02.1986. The petitioner has not remitted the 50% and 30% of the bid amount within the due date as per the terms and conditions of the notification. Therefore, the 20% amount remitted by the petitioner was ordered to be forfeited by the impugned order dated 02.04.1986. Petitioner questions the same on the ground that the said plot is not a developed one; it is not fit for residential purpose; the electricity poles were not erected, roads were not developed and drainage facilities were not provided. Therefore, the 50% of the costs could not be paid within 15 days from the date of action so also the remaining amount of 30% within 30 days. The petitioner has also filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the said plot and obtained injunction in IA.No.1559 of 1987 in O.S.No.503 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif (East & North) Ranga Reddy District. While the said suit is still pending, the petitioner resorted to filing this writ petition. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that when the suit is filed, it is always open for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the suit but he is not entitled to pursue parallel proceedings for the same relief by filing this writ petition. When the said suit is a comprehensive one claiming relief, the petitioner is not entitled to file this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J June 20, 2008 DSK