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 : 19806 of 2008 Between: Smt. D.Nagamani, W/o. Ashok Babu, R/o. H.no.1-7-82/1, Brahman Street, Medak Town, Mandal and District, Medak. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Housing, Muncipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep by its secretary. 2 The Commissioner , Muncipal 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 claim of the Petitioner for allotment of the plot as per Letter No.C1/598/2004 dated 18-11- 2004 on the ﬁle of resopndent No.2 in respect of plots under pHse-II iof Integrated Development of Small and Medium Town (IDSMT) scheme as per Notiﬁcation No.C1/1450/2007 dated 10.8.2007 on the ﬁle of 2nd respondent basing upon the earlier application and deposit made under Phase-I of IDSMT scheme and consequently delcare the action of the Respondents in not registering the Plot to the Petitioner by duly considering the application of the Petitioner 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 claims to have responded to the said notiﬁcation and paid Rs.30,933/-. According to the petitioner, the respondents accepted the amount from her and issued receipt. There being no allotment of plots in Integrated Development of Small and Medium Town Scheme (IDSMT) Phase I, she made representation to 2nd respondent. The 2nd 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 petitioner contends that she need not pay any additional amount since she had already paid the amount for allotment of house site under IDSMT scheme Phase I. She questioned the action of respondents in not allotting plot to her in IDSMT scheme Phase I or Phase II. 2. Rule nisi came to be issued on 10.11.2008. 3. The counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of 2 nd respondent, in brief, is : The petitioner did not submit application 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 petitioner did not submit her application for allotment of house site under IDSMT scheme Phase I. An enquiry was constituted with regard to the payment allegedly made by the petitioner for allotment of house site under IDSMT scheme Phase I and the enquiry revealed that the Town Planning Oﬃcer misused his oﬃce and issued receipt in addition to 350 plots and failed to remit the amount 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. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner paid amount to 2nd respondent for allotment of house site under IDSMT scheme Phase I and therefore 2nd respondent is bound to execute registered sale deed in respect of plot for which consideration is received. He would also contend that the petitioner is not concerned with the disciplinary action initiated against the Town Planning Supervisor for not remitting the money received from her. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner had not submitted applications for allotment of house site in IDSMT scheme Phase I and therefore the question of allotting plot 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. 7. No proof has been placed on record to show that the petitioner submitted application for allotment of house site under IDSMT scheme Phase I. 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 grievance of the petitioner to some extent, she has been asked to submit application for allotment of site in IDSMT scheme Phase II on payment of additional amount. There being no proof of the petitioner submitting application for allotment of site under IDSMT scheme Phase I, her claim cannot be considered for allotment of plot 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 her claim for allotment of house site 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. 8. Indisputably 154 plots are available under IDSMT scheme Phase II. The only beneﬁt that can be conferred to the petitioner is that in case of receiving more number of applications than the number of available plots, her case also be considered on priority basis. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to give priority to the petitioner in case of her applying for allotment of site 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{LS} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19806 OF 2008 15th NOVEMBER 2008.