IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 10394 of 2001 Between: V.S.N.Sastry, Rep. by its President MIG Welfare Association Kukatpalli, 3rd Phase, Kukatpalli Reg. No. 633/99 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Housing Board Rep. by its Vice-Chairman &Housing Commissioner, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer (HG) Western Divison, A.P.Housing Board, Kukatpalli Housing Board Kukatpalli Hyderabad. 3 The Public Relation Officer, A.P.Housing Board, Gruhakalpa, M.J.Road Hyderabad. .....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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the auction advertisment in Advertisement No.346/DB/EE(Hq)/WD/Plots/2000 dt: 11-5-2001 published in Eenadu daily news paper dt: 18-5-2001 by declaring the same is illegal arbitrary and in contravention of the Section 22 of the A.P.Housing Board Act 1956 and Regulation 23 of the Regulations 1977 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SATYA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.V.RAJEEVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO. 10394 OF 2001 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is an association representing MIG Flats Owners, Phase-III, Kukatpalli. In this writ petition the petitioner’s association has questioned the advertisement dated 11.5.2001 issued by the 1st respondent-A.P. Housing Board whereunder it was proposed to auction open plot reserved for educational purposes under phase-III, Western Divisional office, Kukatpalli. The petitioner has questioned the said auction inter alia on the ground that under Regulation 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS) Regulations, 1997 the cost of flat collected from each allottee includes the costs towards open land reserved for community purposes etc. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the open land which is sought to be auctioned by the respondents is a land which is meant for use of petitioner’s association and that its members have already paid for the said land also. 2. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents-A.P. Housing Board asserting that various schemes of the Housing Board have been executed in accordance with layout plan sanctioned with respect to each scheme and under each scheme the open plots which was reserved for parks and community purposes etc. are maintained with respect to the petitioner’s association also. It is asserted that apart from the requisite open space for parks and community purposes, sufficient extent of lung space meant for members of the petitioner’s association is also available. It is further stated that the auction proposed is with respect to stray pieces of open plots which were left over and they are permitted to auction the same in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 8, Housing (H.B.II) Department, dagted 17.2.2001. 3. By order dated 5.7.2001 in WPMP No. 12973 of 2001, this Court had directed status quo to continue and in view of that order, the auction as proposed was not held. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Firstly, the apprehension of the petitioner with regard to Regulation 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS) Regulations, 1997 is completely misplaced in view of the specific averments of the respondents in their counter- affidavit vide para-6. Therefore, it is not, as if that the Housing Board is selling away or auctioning any mandatory open areas in the lay out. Secondly, the sale of stray pieces of open plots were specifically permitted to be sold by a public auction by the Government under G.O.Ms.No. 8, Housing (H.B.II) Department, dated 17.2.2001. The said GO is not under challenge by the petitioner. Thirdly, the aforesaid GO vide para-3 itself directs that the auction process of vacant plots shall be done in association with District Collector and the vacant sites meant for community purposes such as parks and for other similar amenities should be protected. Since the action of the respondents is permitted under the aforesaid GO, the apprehension of the petitioner is clearly misplaced. The writ petition has, therefore, no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. KR ____________ 5.12.2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSKM}