IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16094 of 2008 Between: 1 S. Narsingha Rao S/o. Kishan Rao R/o. NSF Colony, Mambojipally, Medak. 2 B. Pentaiah S/o. Kistaiah R/o. NSF Colony, Mambojipally, Medak. 3 N. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. Durga Reddy R/o. NSF Colony, Mambojipally, Medak. 4 B. Pochaiah S/o. Siddaiah R/o. NSF Colony, Mambojipally, Medak. 5 T. Sathyam Babu S/o. Durgaiah R/o. NSF Colony, Mambojipally, Medak. 6 T. Narayana S/o. Venakaiah R/o. NSF Colony, Mambojipally, Medak. 7 B. Rathna D/o. Rajaiah R/o. Jambhikunta, Medak. 8 K. Padma W/o. Krishna Goud R/o. 1-12-24/A/154, Indrapuri Colony, Medak. 9 Dilip Kumar S/o. M.B. Patel R/o. Medak, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary. 2 The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Medak Municipality, Medak. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus direct the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners for allotment of the plots on a preferential basis in respect of plosts under Phase-II of Integrated Development of Small and Medium Town (IDSMT) scheme as per Notiﬁcation No.C1/1450/2007 dt. 10.08.2007 on the ﬁle of 2nd respondent basin upon the earlier applications and deposits made under Phase-I of IDSMT scheme and consequently declare the action of the Respondents in not registering the Plots to the petitioners by duly considering the applications of the Petitioners under Phase-I of IDSMT scheme as illegal, arbitrary, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAJ KUMAR RUDRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O R D E R: 1. The Medak Municipality acquired land in the year 1986 and got the lay out approved in respect of Survey No.629/96 and made 350 plots of various sizes and categories. The municipality issued notiﬁcation calling for applications for allotment of said plots as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.1183 MA dated 9.11.1983. The petitioner who are nine in number claim to have responded to the said notiﬁcation and paid the value of the plots. According to the petitioner Nos.1 to 8, they paid Rs.30,933/- each and whereas petitioner NO.9 claims to have paid Rs.38,400/-. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents accepted the amount from them and issued receipts. There being no allotment of plots in Integrated Development of Small and Medium Town Scheme (IDSMT) Phase I, they made representations to 2nd respondent. Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are employees of Nizam Sugar Factory, Medak and they are the members of Nizam Sugar Factory Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Mambojipally, Medak. According to the petitioners, 86 members of Nizam Sugar Factory Employees Cooperative Housing Society paid amounts for the house plots and there upon the President of Nizam Sugar Factory Employees Cooperative Housing Society made representation on 22.12.2001 to 2nd respondent for allotment of plots to members of Nizam Sugar Factory Employees Cooperative Housing Society. The Society also made another representation on 28.2.2002 to 2nd respondent for allotment of plots to remaining members of the Society. The 2 nd respondent took up Phase II lay out under IDSMT scheme vide L.P.NO.52 of 2005 consisting of 154 plots of various sizes as per the guidelines of IDSMT scheme and G.O.Ms.No.1183 MA dated 9.11.1983 and G.O.Ms.No.249 MA, dated 7.5.1984. A Local Level Coordination Committee meeting comprising (1) The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, (2) The Director of Town and Country Planning, (3) The Superintending Engineer, Public Health, (4) The Chairperson, Medak Municipality, (5) Municipal Commissioner, Medak in the premises of Municipal Oﬃce, Medak resolved to sell 154 plots of IDSMT scheme Phase II, Medak with a cost of Rs.600/- per square yard. A notiﬁcation was published on 10.8.2007 calling for applications for allotment of 154 plots under IDSMT scheme in Phase II. As per clause 13 of the notiﬁcation individuals who paid money under IDSMT scheme Phase I could make applications for allotment of plot under IDSMT scheme Phase II on payment of additional amount. The petitioners contend that they need not pay any additional amount since they had already paid the amount for allotment of house site under IDSMT scheme Phase I. They questioned the action of respondents in not allotting plots to them in IDSMT scheme Phase I or Phase II. 2. Rule nisi came to be issued on 25.07.2008. An interim order also came to be passed on the even date directing the 2nd respondent to reserve 9 plots in IDSMT scheme Phase II pending disposal of the writ petition. 3. The 2nd respondent ﬁled WVMP.No.3169 of 2008. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of 2nd respondent, in brief, is : The petitioners did not submit applications for allotment of house sites under IDSMT scheme Phase I. All the plots in IDSMT scheme Phase I were allotted and registered sale deeds were executed in favour of the allottees. It is further stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the petitioners did not submit their applications for allotment of house sites under IDSMT scheme Phase I. An enquiry was constituted with regard to the payments allegedly made by the petitioners for allotment of house sites under IDSMT scheme Phase I and the enquiry revealed that the Town Planning Oﬃcer misused his oﬃce and issued receipts in addition to 350 plots and failed to remit the amounts to 2nd respondent. It is further averred in the counter aﬃdavit that the Town Planning Oﬃcer was removed from service by the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad. 4. When the vacate stay petition came up for consideration, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners paid amounts to 2nd respondent for allotment of house sites under IDSMT scheme Phase I and therefore 2nd respondent is bound to execute registered sale deeds in respect of plots for which consideration is received. He would also contend that the petitioners are not concerned with the disciplinary action initiated against the Town Planning Supervisor for not remitting the money received from them. Learned counsel by referring to the letter dated 31-8-1996 emanating from Nizam Sugars employees Cooperative Housing Society, Medak to the Commissioner, Nagar Panchayat, Medak contends that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 paid EMD of Rs.100/- each and therefore they are deemed to have submitted the explanation. 7. I have gone through the letter-dated 31.8.1996. The text of the letter reads as under: “ Adverting to the subject cited and with reference to your letter we are herewith submitting 82 applications (as mentioned in Annexure-I) of our NSL Employees Co.op Housing Society members for allotment of house plots along with requisite EMD. We specially request you to kindly see that the house plots are to be allotted to our members at one place (Block wise) since they are very much interested to reside at one place. Necessary allotment orders may be issued at the earliest so as to enable our members to take up house construction work.” Annexure to the letter wherein the names of petitioners 1 and 3 does not contain the signature of any one. It is not attested by any one as a true copy. Therefore, no authenticity can be given to the list of names in Annexure-I of letter dated 31.8.1996 allegedly addressed to the Commissioner, Nagar Panchayat, Medak. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent submits that the petitioners had not submitted applications for allotment of house sites in IDSMT scheme Phase I and therefore the question of allotting plots in Phase I does not arise. Even otherwise, according to him, there are no vacant plots available under IDSMT scheme Phase I. Therefore, allotment of plots under IDSMT scheme Phase I is impracticable. He would also contend that Local Coordinate Committee reviewed the whole issue and decided to allot plots to persons who claimed to have made payments under IDSMT scheme Phase I subject to payment of additional amount. Learned Standing Counsel refers to clause 13 of the notiﬁcation dated 10.9.2007. As per clause 13 of the notiﬁcation, the applicants who paid the amount under IDSMT scheme Phase I will be allotted in Phase II subject to their paying additional amount. 9. The petitioners claim to have responded to the notiﬁcation issued by 2nd respondent in the year 1986 itself. They did not place any proof to show that they made applications to 2nd respondent seeking allotment of plots. Some of the petitioners claim to have paid Rs.100/- by way of a demand draft towards EMD. Such is the case they must have necessarily paid the value of the cost by way of demand draft only. The contention that they paid the value of the cost in the oﬃce of 2 nd respondent and the concerned person issued receipt cannot be believed. It is the consistent plea of 2nd respondent that the Town Planning Supervisor played mischief in collecting the amounts and subsequently the Department removed him from service. However, in order to alleviate the grievances of the petitioners to some extent, they have been asked to submit applications for allotment of sites in IDSMT scheme Phase II on payment of additional amount. There being no proof of the petitioners submitting applications for allotment of sites under IDSMT scheme Phase I, their claim cannot be considered for allotment of plots under IDSMT scheme Phase I. Even otherwise there is no vacant plot under IDSMT scheme Phase I as on this day. Therefore, the question of considering their claim for allotment of house sites under IDSMT scheme Phase I does not arise. With regard to plots under IDSMT scheme Phase II, the notiﬁcation itself is clear that they are eligible to seek allotment subject to paying additional amount. 10. Indisputably 154 plots are available under IDSMT scheme Phase II. The only beneﬁt that can be conferred to the petitioners is that in case of receiving more number of applications than the number of available plots, their cases are to be considered on priority basis. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to give priority to the petitioners in case of their applying for allotment of sites under IDSMT scheme Phase II. No costs. 15th November 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.16094 OF 2007 15TH NOVEMBER 2008.