IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 9982 of 2002 Between: A.Satyanarayana S/o.Late D.Shiva Rajaiah R/o.7-1-392/A/2, B.K.Guda, Balkampet , Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Housing Board Rep by its Chairman &Managing director Nampally. 2 A.P.Housing Board Rep by its Competent Authority Nampally. .....RESPONDENTS 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 May be pleased to extend the time till 4/9/2002 for payment of the amount directed to be deposited by this Hon'ble Court vide its order Dt:6/6/2002 made in WPMP.No.12259 of 2002 in W.P.No.9982 of 2002 and to pass such other and further orders . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D.RANGANATHA KUMAR, GP FOR HOUSING The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9982 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioner with a prayer to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ of Certiorari calling for the Eviction order in Case No.220/CA1/97, dated 21.05.2002, issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother namely Smt.Padmamma @ Padma purchased an extent of 61.66 sq. yards situated at B.K.Guda, Hyderabad from one Sri Mohan Rao in the year 1982-83 and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till her death. It is stated that after the death of his mother, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is further stated that the parents of the petitioner continued in possession of the said property for a long time and ever since the death of his mother, he has been in possession of the same. While so, alleging unauthorized occupation, the 2nd respondent- Competent Authority of A.P. Housing Board, issued the impugned order, vide Case No.220/CA1/97 dated 21.05.2002, under Sections 52 and 53 of the A.P.Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), for eviction of his mother or any other person in unauthorized occupation from the said land. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though this Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim stay, by order dated 06.06.2002 in W.P.M.P.No.12259 of 2002, subject to payment of Rs.12,000/- by the petitioner within four weeks from 06.06.2002 and the same was made absolute on 11.03.2004, the said amount has not been paid till date. It was further submitted that, in fact, the Government issued orders from time to time for regularization of the encroachments on payment of basic market value, but the petitioner and his mother have not availed the said beneﬁt and, therefore, the Housing Board initiated the case, being Case No.220/CA1/97, under Section 52 and 53 of the Act, and the competent authority issued notice-cum-provisional order dated 02.03.1998 and, after giving hearing notices dated 03.06.1998, 15.06.1998, 14.07.1998, 06.11.1998, 24.03.1998, 16.08.1998, 07.01.2002, 11.02.2002 and 26.04.2002, ﬁnally passed the impugned order on 21.05.2002. It is further stated that pursuant to the issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner herein representing his mother Smt.Padma ﬁled a petition dated 27.05.2002 seeking stay of eviction and for grant of time for payment, which was considered by the Court of Competent Authority and time was granted up to 03.06.2002, but the petitioner failed to pay the amount till such time. 4. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed by the Competent Authority of the A.P. Housing Board-2 nd respondent exercising its power under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act. In fact, against the impugned order, an appeal lies to the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 55 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner shall avail the said eﬀective alternative remedy by ﬁling an appeal before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to ﬁle an appeal before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, if any such appeal is ﬁled, the appellate authority shall entertain the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that if no appeal is ﬁled within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order dated 21.05.2002 attains finality. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 29.07.2008 v v