THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.18086 of 2008 and 17297 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: As the property, which is subject matter of both these writ petitions, is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. In W.P.No.18086 of 2008, petitioner is a retired employee of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, presently, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). When he was in employment, the respondents got approved the layout in Survey No.61 of Madannapet Village, for the purpose of allotment of house sites to its employees on outright sale basis. Through allotment proceedings bearing No.2302/EO/E3/82, dated 30.03.1982, issued by the second respondent - Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, one such plot bearing No.24, admeasuring 66 sq.yards, was allotted to the petitioner, who was working as a driver in Transport Section of the Corporation, for construction of a house. As per condition Nos.1 to 3 of the allotment proceedings, allottee has to deposit cost of the land at Rs.990/- (@Rs.15/- per sq.yard) in the Municipal Treasury and submit a copy of challan in the Office thereof, to submit a stamp paper worth @ 5% of the total cost and other papers for the purpose of registration and should bear the entire expenditure in that regard, and possession is to be delivered after payment of the cost, respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to such allotment proceedings, he has paid entire cost of the land within the prescribed time but neither possession was delivered to him nor registered the plot in his favour. It is stated that in spite of persistent representations made by the petitioner, no action was taken by the respondents, as such, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in failing to deliver possession of plot No.24 and to register it in his name, as illegal and arbitrary. Counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have admitted the allotment of site in question to the petitioner vide proceedings bearing No.2302/EO/E3/82, dated 30.03.1982, issued by the second respondent, on outright sale basis, subject to certain conditions, on par with the workers, who were lower grade staff and who fulfill the requirements specified therein. It is stated that as per condition No.2, allottee has to get register the plot within a period of one month at his own cost, but the petitioner has not complied with the same, as such, the respondents have not registered the plot in his favour. It is further stated that as the petitioner did not take steps to comply with the conditions specified in the allotment proceedings, dated 30.03.1982, and get the plot registered in his name, there was an encroachment by one Mohd.Ghouse, against whom, the respondents have initiated proceedings by issuing notices under Sections 452 and 365 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’), for removal of unauthorized structures and for eviction of him. Notice bearing No.1533/ACP/C4/GHMC/2010, dated 12.07.2010, was issued under Section 452 of the Act by the first respondent - Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad, to one Smt.Shameem Sultana, and after receiving explanation from her, final notice bearing No.1533/ACP/C4/GHMC/2010, dated 17.07.2010, was issued under Section 636 of the Act to her. As against the same, she filed W.P.No.17297 of 2010 seeking to declare the action of the respondents in issuing such notices as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated therein that she purchased the said property through a registered sale deed, dated 16.12.2004, from its previous owner, by name, Siraj Begum, represented by the General Power of Attorney, Mohammad Sameen. It is further stated that her vendor purchased the property from one Bharat Kumar, Son of late Laxminarsaiah Sanghi, under an agreement of sale, dated 18.08.1988. It is also stated that from the inception of purchase, the petitioner is in possession of the property, as such, the impugned notices are illegal and arbitrary. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.18086 of 2008 that having received the entire consideration amount, there is no reason or justification on the part of the respondents in not delivering possession of the plot in question to the petitioner and registering it in his favour. It is submitted that as per condition No.5 of the allotment proceedings, dated 30.03.1982, possession of the plot is to be delivered to the petitioner after payment of the cost. It is further submitted that the respondents neither delivered possession of the plot in question to the petitioner nor registered the plot in his favour in spite of readiness shown by him. It is also submitted that though series of representations were submitted by the petitioner seeking delivery of possession of the plot in question and registration of document in respect thereof, the respondents are not responding to it. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri R.Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for the respondents that as the petitioner did not get the plot registered within a period of 30 days as per condition No.2, he is not entitled to the relief as sought for. It is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel that entire consideration amount has already been paid by the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.17297 of 2010 that as much as the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the plot in question for valuable consideration, removal of structures thereon at this point of time by issuing notices under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act is illegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondents. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is in possession of the plot in question pursuant to the registered sale deed executed by her vendor, by name, Siraj Begum on 16.12.2004 for a valid consideration. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the allotment proceedings issued to the petitioner as early as in 1982. From the counter-affidavit and the pleadings, it is clear that the respondents have taken steps for allotment of house-site of less than 100 sq.yards to the last grade employees, in the approved layout in Survey No.61 of Madannapet Village and that plot bearing No.24 was allotted to the petitioner by allotment proceedings, dated 31.03.1982, in which, condition No.2 is to get the plot registered within a period of one month from the date of receipt thereof, but as per condition No.5, possession of the plot is to be handed over after payment of entire cost. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner did not pay the amount for registration of the plot, he is not entitled to get register it in his favour. It is not in dispute that after allotment of the plot in question to the petitioner, who was working as driver at that point of time, he paid entire sale consideration. In spite of the same, there is no reason for not delivering the possession of the plot in question to the petitioner in terms of condition No.5 of the allotment proceedings. When it is not in dispute that the entire land cost was paid by the petitioner in terms of the allotment proceedings, he is entitled to delivery of possession of it and registration thereof. Further, when the Corporation itself has allotted plot in the approved layout in Survey No.61 of Madannapet Village, in favour of the petitioner, it ought to have taken steps to prevent any encroachment made by the third parties thereon. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that there was an encroachment into the land in question by Mohd.Ghouse against whom proceedings were already initiated, but the petitioner in W.P.No.17297 of 2010, who is the wife of said Mohd.Ghouse, claims that she has purchased the said property by a registered sale deed from her previous owner, by name, Siraj Begum. Even in the affidavit filed in support of W.P.No.17297 of 2010, she stated that her vendor, by name, Siraj Begum, purchased the property pursuant to an agreement of sale executed by original owner, by name, Bharat Kumar. Even according to her, there is no transfer of title in favour of Bharat Kumar, as such, it is not known on what basis Siraj Begum acquired title by virtue of purchase from Bharat Kumar, who is merely an agreement holder. The petitioner claims purchase of the plot in question from Siraj Begum, who herself has no valid title in respect thereof. From a perusal of the registered sale deed also, there is no indication of any survey number or plot number with reference to the property in question. Though the petitioner pleads that she purchased the land in the approved layout, no reference is made in regard thereto in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. At the same time, there is no reason to disbelieve the averment mentioned in the counter-affidavit filed by the Corporation that the petitioner in W.P.No.17297 of 2010 is in unauthorized occupation of the structures raised on plot No.24, which was allotted to the petitioner in W.P.No18086 of 2008. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in issuing notices under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act by the Corporation for removal of unauthorized structures, which are in occupation of the petitioner in W.P.No.17297 of 2010, on the plot in question, as such, she is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Consequently, the petitioner in W.P.No.18086 of 2008 is entitled to the relief as prayed for. In that view of the matter, W.P.No.17297 of 2010 is dismissed and W.P.No.18086 of 2008 is allowed with the direction to the respondents to deliver possession of the plot in question to the petitioner by executing a registered sale deed within a period of six (6) weeks from today. However, the petitioner shall bear registration charges and stamp duty for transfer of the land in his favour. There shall be a further direction to the respondents that if any unauthorized structures are there on the plot in question, the same shall be removed and clear vacant site shall be handed over to the petitioner. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni