THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 12277 of 2005 O R D E R: Petitioner is Vanasthalipuram Welfare Association. The members of petitioner-Association and petitioners 2 and 3 were allotted open plots developed by HUDA and the residential houses were raised thereon. The price fixed against MIG category houses is in question. The authorities fixed the rate of each MIG House for Rs. 45,681/- inclusive of 210 Sq. yards of developed land. Possession was handed over in 1981. In 1986, when a notice was issued to the petitioners for payment of extra expenditure incurred i.e. Rs.12,000/- against each house constructed by the HUDA, petitioners have filed writ petitions and those writ petitions were disposed of directing respondents to consider the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and arrive at a suitable figure by way of final price. After disposal of first writ petition, petitioners filed another writ petition and sought for interim order to dispose of the representation purported to have been made by them. The said writ petition was also disposed of directing respondents to consider the representation purported to have been made by the petitioners. Pursuant to the said representation, the impugned order dated 2.5.2005 is passed. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. The impugned order reads as under: “The matter has been examined by the Government in detail, taking into consideration the contentions of both the parties and keeping in view the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in its order dated 28.4.2004 in W.P. No. 7975/2004. In this respect, several meetings have been conducted at Government level on 30.11.2004, 20.12.2004 and 18.4.2005 inviting both the parties i.e. the Joint Secretary, Vanasthalipuram Welfare Association and the officials from HUDA. The grounds put-forth by both the parties have been heard. It is observed that the petitioners entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement with HUDA agreeing to pay any increase in the estimated cost price and that the final sale price was fixed after completion of the construction of the houses as per condition No. 20 and 22 of allotment. The Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority has stated that the final price was fixed taking into consideration the actual expenditure incurred, and that further reduction is not possible. In view of the above position, the Government hereby reject the request of the Vanasthalipuram Welfare Association to set aside the proceedings first cited issued by the Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. The Vice-Chairman, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is requested to take necessary further action accordingly”. From the above, it is clear that this was subject matter of two writ petitions earlier, namely, W.P. Nos. 26424 of 2003 and 7975 of 2004, and several meetings were arranged between the Society and the HUDA. In fact, there was a lease-cum-sale agreement with the HUDA agreeing to pay any increase in the estimated cost price and that the final sale price was fixed after completion of houses as per Condition Nos. 20 and 22 of the allotment. To this extent, there is no dispute. However, it is the case of the petitioners that the notified cost was Rs.46,000/- and it was already paid by them and now the cost is increased to Rs.58,383/-. The physical possession of first phase of houses was handed over in 1979 and second phase of houses in 1981. The price was fixed as per the norms. In fact, it is stated that the final cost fixed at Rs.58,383/- is lower than the actual cost incurred. The difference between the original cost fixed and the cost fixed after final construction is only Rs.12,383/-. Looking from any angle, this cannot be said to be either on higher side or unreasonable or atrocious. This decision was arrived at, after conducting several meetings with the petitioners. Petitioners have no right whatsoever to question the said increase. That was done as per Clauses 20 and 22 of the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into between the individual allottees and the HUDA. This is, in fact, in the realm of contract. Unless and until some arbitrariness in dealing with the matter which can be looked into by this Court is brought to the notice of this Court, this Court cannot decide as to the correctness or otherwise of the final cost fixed by the respondents. The writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 01-10-2010. MVB.