HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3951 OF 2009 DATED 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.
BETWEEN Dr. D. Swaminandhan ….Petitioner and The Vice Chairman/Secretary, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), Visakhapatnam and anr …Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 3951 OF 2009
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent.
The petitioner is a retired Vice Chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, at Hyderabad. Pursuant to the notification issued by the second respondent on 21.04.1989 for auctioning the ‘C’ type plots in Government land covered by Rishikonda Layout in Tarakarama Nagar, Satellite Township, Visakhapatnam, the petitioner participated in the said auction and stood as highest bidder for Plot No.201 of “C” type at the rate of Rs.152/- per square yards and the total cost worked out for 1080 square yards of the said plot is Rs.1,64,160/-. In addition to the same, the petitioner was asked to pay development charges at Rs.99/-
per square yard which comes to Rs. 1,06,920/-. The petitioner was given allotment order through proceedings dated 30.06.1989 and he was asked to pay 85% of the balance amount i.e. Rs.1,39,539/- excluding Rs.10,000/- paid towards EMD on or before 30.09.1989. On obtaining loan from the Bank, the petitioner paid the amount of Rs.1,29,536/- to the second respondent by way of Demand Draft on 27.11.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representations dated 20.02.1996 and 20.02.1997 requesting the second respondent to register the said plot in his name. On coming to know that the allotment of plot was transferred to the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, the first respondent herein, the petitioner submitted representations to it on 20.02.1996, 06.08.1996 and 20.11.1996 requesting to register the plot in his name. There was no response. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was asked by the first respondent through proceedings dated 16.12.1996 to pay further amount of Rs.3,61,800/- towards development charges in three equal installments commencing from 20.01.1997 to 20.03.1997. Challenging the same, he preferred Writ Petition No. 13512 of 2002 averring that Plot No. C-201, which was subsequently renumbered as Plot No. 163 is to an extent of 1080 square yards and he paid the total cost for the same in the year 1989, however, he was informed that on plotting, the extent was found to be 799.27 square yards and proceedings were issued on 27.07.2006 granting permission to register the same in his name and the balance extent of 283.73 square yards for which amount was already paid would be allotted else where by the first respondent for which development charges have to be paid separately. Though the petitioner made representations to the first respondent on 14.12.2007 and 10.01.2008 seeking allotment of balance extent of land, no orders have been passed. He therefore filed Writ Petition No.9268 of 2008 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.08.2008 directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioner. Pursuant to the said order, the first respondent by detailed order dated 11.12.2006 rejected the request of the petitioner for allotment of balance extent of 280.73 square yards of land and refunded an amount of Rs.5106/- and interest thereon, total amounting to Rs.8425/- by way of cheque. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner paid the amount for the total extent of 1080 square yards in the year 1989, but he was allotted only 799.27square yards and balance extent of 283.73 square yards was not allotted.
The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submitted that as per the revised layout, the petitioner is entitled to 799.27 square yards on ground position and no further vacant land in the finalized layout of the first respondent is available. It is further submitted that the petitioner having accepted the proceedings of the first respondent dated 16.12.1996 is not entitled to claim the balance extent of land and he was also refunded the excess amount with interest thereon It is to be seen from the matrix of the case that pursuant to the order dated 21.08.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9268 of 2008, the first respondent passed self explanatory detailed order. It was pointed out in the said order that when development charges @ 99/- per square yard amounting to Rs.1,06,920/- were asked, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13393 of 2002 and the same was withdrawn by himself and agreed to pay the development charges by letter dated 30.06.2006 addressed to the first respondent. In the letter dated 27.07.2006 of the first respondent, it was made clear to the petitioner that though land originally allotted was 1080 square yards, but on plotting the same, the subject plot came to 799.27 square yards on ground position and that it is not possible to allot the extent mentioned in the allotment order. Thereafter, as the petitioner paid the required development charges together with penal interest unconditionally and voluntarily, the said plot was registered in his favour through registered sale deed dated 08.03.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner sought No Objection Certificate (NOC) to sell the said plot and in regard thereto, he submitted certain affidavits and undertakings together with encumbrance certificate confining the matter for the sale permission of the said plot and at that time also, no objection was raised by the petitioner for not allotting the balance extent of land. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9268 of 2008 for consideration of his representations seeking allotment of balance extent of land of 280.73 square yards and the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 21.08.2008.
Having regard to these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and further having regard to non- availability of land to consider for allotment of balance extent and in view of acceptance of allotment of land made on ground position, the petitioner is not entitled to claim balance extent of land merely on the basis of letter of allotment. No illegality is committed by the first respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 11.12.2008 and therefore the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.
Msnro