THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO.6437 OF 2010 Dt: 03-03-2011 Between: M.V.Ratnakar …..Petitioner And Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, VUDA, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman, Udyog Bhavan Complex, 3rd Floor, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6437 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent issued a notification dated 14.9.1995 proposing to sell the plots in various layouts in Visakhapatnam city. The process of inviting sealed quotations-cum-auction was adopted. The petitioner submitted his sealed quotation, together with E.M.D. of Rs.10,000/- for plot, bearing No.LIG 43 in Section No.1 of M.V. Palem layout. Through proceedings, dated 1.1.1996, the respondent informed the petitioner that the quotation made by him is accepted. The cost of the land at the rates quoted by the petitioner, together with other ancillary charges was determined and ultimately, the petitioner paid the entire amount by 9.3.1996. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 1.8.1996 to the respondent with a request to execute sale deed. However, on 12.8.1996, the respondent informed the petitioner that the sale deed cannot be executed since proceedings in a Court are pending in respect of the said plot. The petitioner was requested to wait for some time, expecting that the litigation would come to an end. On 31.10.1996, the petitioner requested the respondent to refund the sale consideration together with the accrued interest. He made an offer to the effect that the respondent can withhold the amount representing the E.M.D., and in case the litigation comes to end, he would deposit the sale consideration. The respondent acceded to the request and paid the cost of the land, being a sum of Rs.5,10,468/- to the petitioner, by withholding E.M.D. of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner submits that the dispute in relation to the plot initiated by Surisetty Parvathi and Malla Rajamma was decided in favour of the respondent in S.A.No.106 of 2006 by this Court. On coming to know the same, he made a representation to the respondent on 25.1.2010 with a request to execute the sale deed duly offering to redeposit the amount. Through a communication, dated 9.3.2010, the respondent informed the petitioner that in case he wants plot to be conveyed, he has to pay prevailing market value of Rs.28,000/- per square yard subject to further determination and that he shall file an affidavit to the effect that he would not resort to any litigation against them, on re-allotment of the plot. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondent. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. It is a matter of record that the petitioner emerged as the successful bidder for the plot and that he has deposited the entire consideration. It was only on account of the pendency of a litigation in respect of the plot, that the respondent was handicapped from executing the sale deed. It is not known as to whether the litigation was initiated before the notification was issued or after. On hearing from the respondent that it would not be possible for them to execute the sale deed, the petitioner sought refund of the sale consideration. There was consensus between the parties that the E.M.D. paid by the petitioner would be retained and the transaction would be revived, as and when the litigation ceases. For all practical purposes, the contract was kept alive. Once the litigation was resolved in favour of the respondent, there was no impediment for proceeding with the contract, i.e., execution of the sale deed, on deposit of the sale consideration. It may be true that over the years during which the litigation was pending, there was escalation of prices of the land. However, it is equally true that the petitioner was denied the benefit of enjoying the property and but for the litigation, he would have been the beneficiary of the escalation also. The respondent, which is created under statute, cannot act in unreasonable and capricious manner, by insisting the petitioner to pay the prevailing market value. He can be revived to pay the refunded bid amount with interest. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner for the plot in question on payment of original sale consideration, i.e., Rs.5,10,468/- with interest at 12% per annum from 10.1.1997 till the date of deposit of the amount. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, he shall not be entitled to reap the benefit under this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dt: 03.03.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.6437 of 2010 DATE: 03.03.2011