IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.2064 of 2008 Between: V.Ramachandra Nair ..... Petitioner AND 1.Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Housing Commissioner, Gruhakalpa, MJ Road, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri.J.Venkateshwar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.D.Ranganatha Kumar, SC for APHB Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings No.4676/E6/EE(S)/08, dated 24-01-2008, issued by respondent No.1. I have heard Sri J.Venkateshwar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri D.Ranganatha Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner, who was an employee of respondent No.1- Housing Board, came to occupy a room, existing over the latter’s land, which was constructed by the contractor, who constructed houses for respondent No.1- Housing Board. The said room was constructed over a plot admeasuring 95 square yards situated by the side of H.No.MIG 53/A, Housing Board Colony, Moulali, Hyderabad. When the petitioner was issued Memo, dated 01-03-1996, calling upon him to vacate the aforesaid premises within three days, he has filed WP.No.4243 of 1996, and this Court has granted interim stay of eviction vide Order, dated 04-03-1996. Subsequently, by Order, dated 21-06-1999, this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition by holding that the petitioner failed to make out a case for issuance of Mandamus to direct the respondents either to allot the subject room to the petitioner or not to evict him therefrom. The petitioner was, however, given liberty to approach respondent No.1- Housing Board for allotment of the said premises in terms of G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 11-06-1984. Accordingly, the petitioner made representations, dated 06- 10-2005 and 03-12-2007, before respondent No.1, seeking allotment of the aforesaid premises on market value. As those representations were not considered, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.26552 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court, by Order, dated 13-12-2007, with the direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider and dispose of the said representations in accordance with law. In compliance with the said Order, the Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner of respondent No.1- Housing Board considered the petitioner’s representations and rejected the same vide proceedings No.4676/E6/EE(S)/08, dated 24-1- 2008. Assailing this Order, the present Writ Petition is filed. A perusal of the impugned order would show that while rejecting the petitioner’s representations, detailed reasons have been assigned. It is stated therein that in Order, dated 21-06-1999, in W.P.No.4243 of 1996, this Court held that the petitioner does not have any enforceable right to seek a Mandamus to regularize his occupation over the subject premises and that the petitioner, being an employee of respondent No.1- Housing Board, can stay therein so long as he is permitted by the employer and not otherwise. Respondent No.1, further, dealt with the petitioner’s plea that he is entitled to regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.20, dated 11-6-1984, by holding that the said GO was superseded and replaced by GO.Ms.No.38 Housing (HB2) Department, dated 30-05-1997, which has no application to the petitioner’s case as it enables only the adjacent house owners to seek allotment of the spare pieces of the lands on current market value without conducting public auction subject to production of ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the concerned Municipality/Municipal Corporation etc. Admittedly, the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the premises belonging to respondent No.1- Housing Board and he has already suffered an Order from this Court wherein it was held that he does not have any enforceable right for regularization of his occupation over the premises in question. The reasoning of respondent No.1 that G.O.Ms.No.20 was no longer in force as the same was replaced by GO.Ms.No.38 and that the latter GO has no application to the facts of the petitioner’s case is not shown to be either incorrect or improper. In this set of facts, I do not find any merit in the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled to the allotment of the premises in his occupation. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interim order, dated 12-02-2008, is vacated and WVMP.No.2259 of 2008 and WPMP.No.2627 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 16th June, 2011 lur