The High Court dismissed this writ appeal, holding that the single Judge's order refusing alternate allotment to the appellant—who had failed to pay for the previous offer and filed the petition with significant delay—was correct. The court found the appeal lacked bona fides.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal No. 60 of 2013
DATED: 25-06-2013
Between:
Mir Mohsin Ali
… Appellant
The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, rep., by its Chairman, Gruha Kalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad and three others
… Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
Writ Appeal No. 60 of 2013
JUDGMENT: (per Sri N.V. Ramana, J)
The unsuccessful writ petitioner filed this writ appeal feeling aggrieved by order dated 01-10-2012 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 24975 of 2007.
The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The appellant/writ petitioner was a tenant in premises bearing No. 5/East, M.J Road, Hyderabad belonging to the Government. The said premises appears to have been given by the Public Works Department to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.31.59 ps. Subsequently, under G.O.Ms.No. 361, dated
21-02-1963 and G.O.Ms.No. 1940, dated 03-08-1965, the Government transferred various government properties on either side of M.J Road including the tenanted property of the appellant to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board for implementation of development scheme. Thereby, the Housing Board became the owner of the properties. Since the said premises along with the other properties was acquired for development by the Housing Board, the appellant was notified to vacate the premises by terminating his tenancy and on the appellant’s failure to vacate, appropriate proceedings under Sections 52 and 53 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956 were initiated before the competent authority. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the appellant requested for allotment of alternate accommodation and in
order to achieve eviction at the earliest, the Housing Board recommended the request of the appellant to the Government. The appellant thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 10551 of 1987 against the Government for their inaction to pass orders on the recommendations of the Housing Board. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13-03-1989 directing the Housing Board to consider the request of the appellant and allot suitable alternate site by taking steps promptly.
Pursuant to the said directions, it appears, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.111 Housing (HB.II.1) Department, dated 01-10-1992 permitting the Housing Board to allot a dilapidated house of 437.88 square yards at Aghapura and also 304.88 square yards on the northern side of Quadric Mosque at Aghapura to the appellant. The said G.O was further modified by G.O.Ms.No.79, Housing (H.B.II.1) Department, dated 10-08-1994 permitting the aforesaid allotment by collecting cost of the land at Rs.600/- per square yard which was the then existing registration value as per basic value register. The appellant accepted the said allotment with respect to land admeasuring 437.88 square yards at Aghapura and paid the land cost and accordingly, the Housing Board executed and registered a sale deed in his favour. The appellant, however, did not accept the allotment with respect to 304.88 square yards. The present writ appeal relates to the second site of 304.88 square yards. Subsequently, the appellant made a request for allotment of alternate site under his representation dated 19-04-2007 and 02-06-2007 on the ground that the said site is adjacent to mosque and he will not be able to peacefully enjoy the said land against the wishes of the mosque. It appears that in the meanwhile the officials of the said mosque also requested for allotment of said land of 304.88 square yards to themselves on the ground that it is adjacent to the mosque and is more useful for the mosque. The Housing Board thereupon considered their
request and through its Committee which examined the feasibility of allotment to the mosque, recommended to the Government that the said site of 304.88 square yards be allotted to the mosque at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per square yard. It appears that the request of the mosque was considered favourably by the Government under G.O.Ms.No. 29, Housing (H.B.II.1), Department, dated 03-04-2003 as per the recommendation above, but the request of the appellant for alternate site was rejected. The appellant has questioned the said G.O in Writ Petition No. 24975 of 2007 out of which the present writ appeal arises.
The Housing Board filed a counter before the learned single Judge pointing out that the said offer of allotment of both the sites was made to the appellant as early as in the year 2000 and as per the said letter of allotment, the appellant was to make payment of the amount within a month from the date of receipt of the memo, failing which the allotment itself would stand cancelled without notice. It was pointed out that though the appellant had accepted the offer with regard to 437.88 square yards and paid the amount, he did not accept the offer with regard to the other site of 304.88 square yards. It is also stated that the appellant was not inclined to take the said second site offered to him and had sought alternate land. The said request of the appellant was not accepted by the Government under their letter No.2127/HB II-1/2000-5, dated 17-08-2001 wherein it was clearly stated that if the appellant does not want the second site of 304.88 square yards, he will not be offered any alternate land and the site would be offered to the mosque. The Housing Board therefore submitted that of the two pieces of alternate lands offered to the petitioner, he has accepted one, for which on receipt of consideration sale deed has also been executed and registered. It was also pointed out that the writ petition is filed after four and half years of the date of issue of the G.O and seven years after the allotment letter issued to
him. The writ petition, therefore, suffers from delay and laches.
The learned single Judge considering the matter at length dismissed the writ petition on finding that the appellant did not avail the allotment of second site and as per the conditions of allotment, the said allotment automatically stood cancelled after the stipulated time and as such, the appellant cannot seek further allotment of another alternate site. The learned single Judge therefore found that no legal right is vested in the appellant in view of cancellation of earlier allotment order.
Learned counsel for the appellant, in this appeal, submits that rejection of the appellant’s request for alternate land by the Government under letter dated 17-08-2001 was not communicated to the appellant. He further submits that notwithstanding the said rejection, the Committee of the Housing Board once again considered the said aspect and recommended allotment of alternate land to the appellant under the Board’s resolution dated 29-04-2002. It is stated in the affidavit that the appellant was pursuing with the Housing Board and it is only much later he came to know of the impugned G.O., and, therefore, he has approached this Court after obtaining the copies thereof. Learned counsel placed reliance upon paragraph 11 of the affidavit to contend that the delay in approaching this Court is properly explained. It is also contended that the impugned G.O., rejecting the request of allotment of alternate land was issued without notice and hearing the appellant.
Learned Standing Counsel for the Housing Board, on the other hand, supports the impugned order and has pointed out that the order of allotment for both the sites issued to the appellant through memo dated 24-11-2000 contains conditions of the said allotment. Condition No.3 of the said allotment order provides that if the allottee fails to pay the amount within the stipulated time, the sale offer stands cancelled without any notice.
It is evident and not in dispute that the appellant has not paid any amount with regard to the second site allotted to him. The said offer dated 24-11-2000 on the face of it therefore worked out itself after the appellant committed default in payment of amount within one month. Thereafter, though there is some correspondence with regard to the further alternate land sought for by the appellant, we find that the proceedings of the Committee of the Housing Board and its resolution so far as recommending alternate land to the appellant is concerned, was totally contrary to the decision of the Government dated 17-082001 whereunder the Government had rejected the request of the appellant for any alternate land. The issue as to the alternate land therefore stands concluded as early as on 17-08-2001. Thereafter, on the request of the mosque, the second alternate site which was earlier offered to the appellant but declined by him, was offered to the mosque and G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 03-04-2003 was issued allotting the said land to the mosque. The appellant has filed the writ petition questioning the said G.O., only on 22-11-2007 almost four and half years after the said G.O., and more than seven years after the letter of allotment. The explanation submitted by the appellant in paragraph 11 of his affidavit is clearly an after thought and cannot be accepted as the appellant who admittedly received the offer of allotment cannot claim ignorance of the terms and conditions of the said allotment. It is clear and apparent that without payment of any amount so far as the second site is concerned, the appellant went on prolonging the issue by needless correspondence and has ultimately filed the writ petition after a lapse of seven years of the allotment seeking alternate land.
We do not find any bona fides or merits in the claim of the appellant as it clearly appears to be highly belated and speculative. The order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition does not, therefore, warrant any interference.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
N.V. RAMANA, J
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
25th June, 2013 ks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition for lack of allegations of violation of Article 21.
Whether the appellant's claim based on belatedness and speculative proceedings has bona fides or merits.
Mir Mohsin Ali
The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and others
N.V. Ramana
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
