IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.346 of 2008 Between: M/s. Nandagiri Cooperative Housing Society, A Registered Society under A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001, rep by its Managing Committee Member Sri P. Sarat Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, rep. by its Vice Chairman, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in alienating the lands of the 1st respondent-Government in the neighbourhood of the petitioner-society without following the public auction as unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary and also declare that it can be alienated only in the public auction and for the purpose of planned development without resorting to multi storied building, which were not permitted anywhere in the vicinity. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Writ Petition No.346 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a Cooperative Housing Society seeking directions to the respondents not to alienate the lands of the 1st respondent- Government in its neighbourhood without following public auction. The Secretary of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, who filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter, has stated in paragraph 10 at page 5 of his counter-affidavit as follows:- “The answering respondent is not entering into any transaction without following the procedure for sale of the property. The answering respondent is going to sell the said property if it is being sold only by way of tender cum public auction or in accordance with the policy decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The answering respondent reiterates that after sale of the land or plots in question, the purchaser of the said plots will be permitted to raise the construction only in accordance with law.” In view of the categorical statements made on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the apprehensions entertained by the petitioner society are belied. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, but however, without costs. _________________________ (Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J) 21st April, 2008. IBL To 1 The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad. 3 Two CD Copies