THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15639 of 2005 Dated: 05-09-2014 Between:
Ch.Hari Babu .. Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.15639 OF 2005 O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner states that he is in the automobile industry since long time and he intended to establish an automobile servicing center/workshop at Rajeev Gandhi Auto Nagar, Karimnagar and as such he enquired with the respondents for allotment of land. He was told by the respondent that a notification was published for allotment of land in locally published news paper and later on he came to know that without following the procedure, the respondents have allotted lands to several petitioners including respondent No.4. Rajeev Gandhi Auto Nagar was established in the year 1992 at Karimnagar for which purpose an extent of Acs.17.20 guntas of land in various survey numbers was acquired under the provisions of the land acquisition Act and out of the said land, an extent of Acs.15.23 guntas of land was allotted to various persons for establishing automobile work shops. The balance of the land of an extent of Ac.1.37 guntas situated in Survey No.623/1 and 624/A, B was under litigation before various Courts.
3. The present writ petition was filed alleging that due procedure was not followed by the respondents, though the litigation ended in favour of the respondents. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25349 of 2004 challenging the action of the respondents in allotting the plots without following the regulations framed by respondent No.1. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to follow the regulations in respect of allotment of lands and the petitioner was given liberty to challenge the same, if the respondents had violated/deviated any regulations of A.P.I.I.C.C. Allotment Regulations, 1998 (Regulations).
4. The petitioner came to know that respondent Nos.2 and 3 allotted land in favour of respondent No.4 and entered into an agreement of sale on 18.11.2004 in the said land. Subsequently, a sale deed was issued in his favour. The petitioner states that the said allotment was made without following regulation Nos.3 and 8 of the Regulations, which provided for publication of notification in the newspaper and only after receiving the application from the prospective applicants the corporation shall allot the plots by way of public auction.
5. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit stating that after the orders of this Court in W.P.No.25349 of 2004, dated 14.02.2005, they released a paper notification on 18.06.2005 in Eenadu Daily News Paper (Karimnagar District Edition) in respect of vacant plots at Autonagar, Karimnagar and the petitioner has not applied for allotment of plots. In case, the petitioner applied for allotment, the respondent corporation would have considered the request. So far as allotment of plots in favour of respondent No.4 is concerned, respondent No.4 applied for allotment of plot well before acquisition of land for establishment of M/s. Nirmal Scooters in Autonagar, Karimnagar on 01.09.1990 and paid E.M.D. of Rs.2,500/- on the same date vide receipt No.020489. The Revenue Department had handed over the land on 04.01.1992 and the respondent Corporation allotted plot No.70 admeasuring 150 square meters from out of developed plots in Acs.15.23 guntas to respondent No.4 on 06.01.1998. The unit has paid total sale consideration of Rs.36,000/-. The Autonagar Association also recommended for allotment of 500.00 square metres of land to respondent No.4 vide letter dated 10.01.1998 and the Autonagar Association also recommended for allotment of the said extent of land. Since there was no plots available and since the land of an extent of Acs.1.37 guntas was involved in litigation, an undertaking was given that if the Court dispute is not settled in favour of respondent corporation, they shall not claim any damages or interest in respect of the amounts hold by the respondent. However, when the dispute was settled and an award was passed in favour of the Corporation, in respect of balance area of Acs.1.37 guntas, the corporation allotted plot No.136 to respondent No.4 on 07.09.2004. The sale agreement was entered initially and a sale deed was also given on 18.09.2004.
6. In view of the failure of the petitioner to apply for allotment of plot, pursuant to the paper notification by the respondent corporation on 18.06.2005, the petitioner was not allotted any plot.
7. In that view of the matter, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand dismissed.
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 05-09-2014 vhb