S. B. SINHA, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals involving common question of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. ( 2 ) THE case has chequered history. ( 3 ) 89 acres of land in Mallepally, hyderabad has been acquired by the City improvement Board for the public purpose of house construction under the Land acquisition Act in the year 1955. Out of the said 89 acres of land, 42. 66 acres was utilised for construction purpose and 29. 84 acres was reserved for roads and vacant spaces for providing parks, play grounds and for community purposes. The houses were accordingly constructed and the same were handed over to the allottees. While so, after some time the Housing board decided to construct residential blocks in the area reserved as an open space or as a park after having allotted the houses in the colony to others. Questioning the said action of the Housing Board, the allottees of the houses i. e. , residents of vijayanagar Colony filed WP No. 4772 of 1968 contending that the Housing Board is taking up construction without obtaining permission of the Municipal Corporation of hyderabad as required by the Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act and G. O. Ms. No. 89, Housing, dated 3-6-1968. ( 4 ) THIS Court in its order dated 8-7-1969 while allowing the writ petition held that under Section 22 (b) of the housing Board Act, 1956 ( the Act for brevity), notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the respondent-Board has a right to layout or re-layout of any land comprised in the scheme. But for laying out of any land comprised in the scheme or programme the procedure envisaged under Sections 23 to 31 of the Act has to be followed. The Housing Board was therefore not competent to proceed with the execution of the work before such publication and consequently must be restrained from executing it. ( 5 ) SMT. Rais Jahan Begum, respondent in these appeals, is a war widow. Her husband, Captain Yousuf Siddiqui, while working in Indian Army in Medical corps, died during military operations. Subsequently, she made an application for allotment of a residential plot. The government of Andhra Pradesh by issuance of G. O. Ms. ( 5 ) SMT. Rais Jahan Begum, respondent in these appeals, is a war widow. Her husband, Captain Yousuf Siddiqui, while working in Indian Army in Medical corps, died during military operations. Subsequently, she made an application for allotment of a residential plot. The government of Andhra Pradesh by issuance of G. O. Ms. No. 69, Housing, municipal and Administration and Urban development Department, dated 17-10-1979 accorded sanction for sale of 600 square yards of the site opposite to H. No. 18/3 RT belonging to A. P. Housing Board at vijayanagar Colony at the prevailing market value, in her favour dispensing with public auction. ( 6 ) THE Welfare Association of vijayanagar Colony represented by its president, however, filed a representation before the Government praying cancellation of the Government order on the ground that sale of house site belonging to the housing Board is illegal as the same is earmarked for public purpose. While the matter was pending consideration before the Government, the Welfare Association filed WP No. 4646 of 1983 before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court in his order dated 23-10-1987 directed the government to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt thereof. Subsequently, the Government by its letter No. 1423/d2/ b3-9 Hg. , dated 9-5-1989 directed the housing Board under Rule 78 (1) of A. P. Housing Board Rules to sell the aforementioned site to Smt. Rais Jahan begum at the market value of Rs. 450/- per square yard. The Government on the same date rejected the representation filed by the President, Vijayanagar Colony welfare Association. Subsequently, the housing Board issued a Memo bearing no. l6034/j3/78, dated 2-6-1989 directing smt. Rais Jahan Begum to pay the amount towards purchase of the aforementioned land @ Rs. 450/- per square yard within one month. Smt. Rais Jahan Begum filed a writ petition being WP No. 17080 of 1989 challenging the action of the Housing Board directing her to pay the amount at the rate of Rs. 450/- per square yard. It is her case before this Court that initially the Housing board decided to sell the aforementioned land @ Rs. Smt. Rais Jahan Begum filed a writ petition being WP No. 17080 of 1989 challenging the action of the Housing Board directing her to pay the amount at the rate of Rs. 450/- per square yard. It is her case before this Court that initially the Housing board decided to sell the aforementioned land @ Rs. 100/- per square yard and when she was about to pay the amount the Board contended that since the matter is sub judice before the City Civil Court, hyderabad, necessary orders will be communicated to her after disposal of the matter by the civil Court. When the proceedings before the Civil Court, hyderabad were concluded in the year 1984, the Board have neither accepted the money nor allotted the land in her favour. The learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition on 16-8-1995 directing: in view of the above, the order dated 9-5-1989 is without any authority of law and it is accordingly set aside. However, since the petitioner did not deposit the sale price with the respondents, she is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 30-11-1979. The petitioner is directed to deposit the sale consideration with interest within four weeks from today. On such deposit being made, the respondents are directed to deliver possession of the land within two weeks thereafter, after executing the sale deed. ( 7 ) A writ petition being WP No. 21139 of 1995 was filed by one Achuta Rao, a resident of the Vijayanagar Colony and ex-President of the Vijayanagar Colony welfare Association, praying for a declaration that G. O. Rt. No. 69, dated 17-10-1979 issued by the Government and the consequential letter dated 9-5-1989 and memo dated 2-6-1989 issued by the housing Board is illegal and for a direction restraining them from implementing the government order in the name of Smt. Rais jahan Begum. Sri Achuta Rao has also filed another writ petition being WP no. 21279 of 1996 seeking to declare the proceedings issued in Memo No. 1423/d2/ 83-9, Housing, dated 9-5-1989 by the government as illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void. He has also filed a review petition being WP MP SR No. 108548 of 1995 seeking to review the order dated 16-8-1995 passed in WP No. 17080 of 1989. 21279 of 1996 seeking to declare the proceedings issued in Memo No. 1423/d2/ 83-9, Housing, dated 9-5-1989 by the government as illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void. He has also filed a review petition being WP MP SR No. 108548 of 1995 seeking to review the order dated 16-8-1995 passed in WP No. 17080 of 1989. This Court by its common judgment dated 13-12-1996 allowed the aforementioned writ petitions and remanded the matter back to the Government with a direction to dispose of the representation made by achuta Rao after issuing a notice to the respondent association of Vijayanagar colony within 4 weeks from the date of receipt thereof. Therein, it was further directed :. . . . . . The 1st respondent is directed to consider whether the extent of 3,200 sqyards of land which is kept as vacant space is available for sale. The Government is directed to consider the same in the light of the judgment in WP No. 4772 of 1968 as confirmed in writ Appeal No. 30 of 1970. If the 1st respondent comes to the conclusion that the Housing Board is not competent to sell the land in the light of the judgment referred to above, it may allot an alternate land of 600 sq. yards wherever is available to the 3rd respondent. The petitioners are directed to file a copy of the representation already filed prior to the disposal of the writ Petition No. 4646 of 1983 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Government. As regard the review petition, it was observed :. . . . Writ Petition No. 17080 of 1989 was filed disputing the price fixed for the land sought to be sold to the 3rd respondent who is the petitioner in that writ petition. The issue involved in that writ petition is what is the price at which the plot is to be sold to the petitioner in that writ petition. The question whether the land is available for sale and whether the Housing Board is competent to sell the same to the 3rd respondent was not considered in the writ petition. While disposing of the writ petition, it was held that the land should be sold to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 100/- and not at the rate of Rs. 450/ -. While disposing of the writ petition, it was held that the land should be sold to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 100/- and not at the rate of Rs. 450/ -. Therefore, in the event of the 1st respondent holding that the Housing Board is competent to sell the land, the price at which the plot is to be sold still remains to be considered. Therefore, it is not necessary to set aside that order. If the 3rd respondent succeeds in getting the land, the price at which the land is to be sold will be as determined in writ Petition No. 17080 of 1989. If she does not succeed the judgment in the writ petition will be of no use to the petitioner in that writ petition. In view of the above, the Review WP MP No. 108548 of 1995 is dismissed. The 1st respondent is also directed to issue notice to respondent No. 3 in whose favour G. O. Rt. No. 69 of 1990 was issued. ( 8 ) PURSUANT to the aforementioned directions, the Principal Secretary to government, Housing Department, heard the matter and by reason of an order dated 14-12-1998 held that the objections raised by Vijayanagar Colony Welfare Association were not sustainable on the ground that 600 square yards of land is not a part of open space meant for parks and playgrounds. It was further held that the said land is part of 60% of the open land available for sale by the Housing Board, as mentioned inwp No. 4772 of 1968 and confirmed in wano. 30 of 1970. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the government, Vijayanagar Colony Welfare association filed WP No. 7181 of 1999 seeking a declaration that the Government order dated 14-12-1998 and the Memo dated 22-12-1998 for sale of land in favour of rais Jehan Begum is illegal. WP No. 2576 of 1999 was filed by Rais Jehan Begum for a direction to the Housing Board to register 600 square yards of land in her favour. The learned single Judge by reason of his judgment dated 24-7-2000 allowed WP no. 2576 of 1999 filed by Rais Jehan Begum and dismissed WP No. 7181 of 1999 filed by the Association, holding :. . . . the plot falls in 60% salable area in which event the Association cannot make any objections. The learned single Judge by reason of his judgment dated 24-7-2000 allowed WP no. 2576 of 1999 filed by Rais Jehan Begum and dismissed WP No. 7181 of 1999 filed by the Association, holding :. . . . the plot falls in 60% salable area in which event the Association cannot make any objections. Of course if it falls in 40% non- salable and usable area earmarked for communal purposes, it is always open for them to agitate the same. When the plot falls within the salable area, the Government has got power to direct the sale of plot in favour of the third parties including 3rd respondent. ( 10 ) IN the aforementioned judgment the learned Judge also directed the Housing board to register the plot in favour of smt. Rais Jehan Begum as directed earlier in WP No. 17080 of 1989 duly collecting the amount together with interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. ( 11 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order, WA no. 1182 of 2000 was filed by the writ petitioner-Association inter alia on the grounds that the learned Judge erred in upholding the order of the Government that merely because the Housing Board had alienated portions of the land of 3200 square yards illegally to third parties, the Board is justified in selling the said land to Smt. Rais jehan Begum by another illegal act and the same is contrary to the judgment of this court in WP No,4772 of 1968. ( 12 ) IT was contended that the learned single Judge committed an error insofar as he failed to consider the finding of the government in its order dated 14-12-1998 to the effect that Housing Board was entitled to sell 60% of the open land for themselves and the rest of 40% was earmarked for open space for parks or community purposes was based on no evidence. It was further contended that even assuming that the Board has power to sell its land under Section 45 of the housing Board Act ( the Act for brevity) to smt. It was further contended that even assuming that the Board has power to sell its land under Section 45 of the housing Board Act ( the Act for brevity) to smt. Rats Jehan Begum, the Government has no power to issue a direction to the board in that regard and insofar as the board has surrendered its discretion to the government and had not independently exercised its power under Section 45 of the Act, the order 14-12-1998 must be held to be bad in law and is thus liable to be set aside. ( 13 ) WRIT Appeal No. 1504 of 2000 has been filed by the Secretary, A. P. Housing board, being aggrieved by the order dated 24-7-2000 passed in WP No. 2576 of 1999, inter alia on the ground that the learned Judge ought to have noticed that in view of the vigilance report, no direction for registration of the plot in favour of the respondent could have been issued. It was submitted that Smt. Rais Jehan Begum has no fundamental right to have the property registered in her favour. ( 14 ) WRIT Appeal No. 1642 of 2000 is filed by Mr. Achuta Rao, Secretary, vijayanagar Colony Welfare Association, a third party, challenging the order in WP no. 2576 of 1999. ( 15 ) MR. T. Ramakrishna Rao, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would contend that the first respondent had not followed the directions given by this Court in WP No. 21279 of 1996 while issuing Memo dated 14-12-1998 and that the Government has no power to dispose of the land vested in Housing board in view of the provisions contained in section 45 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing board Act, 1956. He would further contend that the open land of 3200 square yards, which was left for park and playground, vests in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under Section 36 (2) of the Housing Board act, 1956 and out of the said land, the land to the extent of 600 square yards could not be sold to the third respondent in view of the doctrine of public trust as enunciated in M. C. Mehta v. Kamalnath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 . He would also urge that the respondents are estopped from contending that the land sold to third respondent does not form part of open space earmarked for park and playground in the original lay out of the housing scheme in view of the admission of Housing Board that the open land was earmarked for park and playground. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 would contend that the land of 600 square yards in favour of third respondent was allotted upon holding an enquiry in that regard and the said finding of fact cannot be assailed in writ proceedings. He would further contend that the extent of 3200 square yard was never left for park or playground and the said allotment is, therefore, perfectly valid. ( 17 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of first respondent would contend that the land of 600 square yards allotted to third respondent does not form part and parcel of 3200 square yards and is within 60% of the saleable land and it would not serve any purpose for park or playground. ( 18 ) ONE of the contentions raised in this matter is whether the writ petitioner- respondent was a war widow. Such a question, it appears, admittedly had been raised in the earlier matters. In WP No. 4646 of 1983, the then Secretary, A. P. Housing board Sri M. Lakshma Reddy filed a counter- affidavit wherein inter alia it was stated that from a discreet enquiry, it was learnt that respondent was a widow and her husband Captain Yousuf Siddiqui who was killed in II World War on 13-1-1994. In the second writ petition, viz. , WP No. 21279 of 1995 Achuta Rao, the petitioner in his affidavit stated : the third respondent is not a war widow as stated in the G. O. Rt. No. 68/79. Her husband had died while in the service of Army. The husband of the 3rd respondent was allotted house No. 18/3rt, Vijayanagar colony, Hyderabad. So the 3rd respondent cannot claim any privilege or concession for the sale of the land. After the death of her husband, the 3rd respondent remarried a business man thirty years ago and gave birth to three daughters through her second husband in Uttar Pradesh and she is residing there since 35 years. So the 3rd respondent cannot claim any privilege or concession for the sale of the land. After the death of her husband, the 3rd respondent remarried a business man thirty years ago and gave birth to three daughters through her second husband in Uttar Pradesh and she is residing there since 35 years. Her second husband died recently leaving a vast estate of Municipal Administration and Urban development Department, dated 17-10-1979 issued by the 1st respondent for sale of land admeasuring 600 sq. yards to 3rd respondent is illegal without jurisdiction, null and void and to quash the same and restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from implementing the said G. O. ( 19 ) YET again in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in the said writ petition, the then Secretary, a. P. Housing Board stated : from discreet enquiry, it is learnt that the respondent No. 3 is war widow and her husband Capt. , Mohammed Siddiqui was killed in II World War on 13-1-1944. As such the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 is not a war widow is also not correct. ( 20 ) BEFORE us, various additional material papers have been submitted from a perusal whereof, it appears that two learned advocates of this Court certified the writ petitioner as a war widow. Before the secretary of the Housing Board, the writ petitioner presented herself together with a photograph which was attested by the Inspector-General of Police and two advocates who are her neighbours viz. , Mazrullah Khan in Certificate dated 1-7-2000 and the MLA of Asifnagar d. Nagender, Assembly Constituency. They stated that the petitioner is an old lady and she has two married daughters. The statements made by the writ petitioner in WPNo. 21219 of 1996 are to the effect that she is aged 83 years and except for short intervals, she had always been residing at Hyderabad. It was further stated that after the death of her husband in the year 1944, she never remarried. The said statements have neither been denied nor disputed. Despite an issue having been raised as regards the status of the third respondent as a war widow, this Court had issued the directions. It was further stated that after the death of her husband in the year 1944, she never remarried. The said statements have neither been denied nor disputed. Despite an issue having been raised as regards the status of the third respondent as a war widow, this Court had issued the directions. The said contention raised by the appellants must therefore be held to have been rejected by this Court and as such they would operate as res judicata. ( 21 ) IT is really a matter of great regret that despite the fact that the issue had not been pressed in the earlier writ petition, the appellants herein had taken recourse to the character assassination of the respondent herein by stating that she had remarried and she was not a resident of Hyderabad. The name of the alleged second husband of the respondent had never been disclosed. The contention that the said respondent married her brother-in-law stands falsified by reason of the fact that he had died as far back as in the year 1961. The contention of the appellant to the aforementioned effect must be rejected. ( 22 ) ONE of the questions, which requires serious consideration by this Court, is as to whether the area in question is a park or not. By reason of the impugned order dated 13-12-1996 in WP No. 21279 of 1996, this Court directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner- k. Achuta Rao within four weeks from the date of receipt of that order as to whether an extent of 3200 square yards, of land was available for sale and whether the Housing Board was competent to sell them. By reason of the order dated 14-12-1998, after hearing of the parties and examination, the Government passed an order confirming the sale of the plot in favour of the third respondent holding that the plot of 600 square yards, fell within 60% of the salable area of Vijayanagar colony. In this connection, we may refer that the Housing Board had contended that the said area had ceased to be a park area as the plan was relayed in terms ofthe statute. In this connection, we may refer that the Housing Board had contended that the said area had ceased to be a park area as the plan was relayed in terms ofthe statute. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the finding of the fact arrived at by the State to the effect that the land in question does not form part of the park area or open land and was, thus, available for sale is not vitiated in law. ( 23 ) IN view of the aforementioned finding of fact, the main contention raised by Mr. Ramakrishna Rao fails. ( 24 ) THE learned Counsel would however contend that the State has no authority to issue any direction upon the housing Board. ( 25 ) SECTION 79 of the A. P. Housing board Act reads thus : 79. Government s powers of supervision :- (1) The Government may give the Board such directions as in its opinion are necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act, after giving an opportunity to the Board to state its objections, if any, to such directions and after considering the said objections. It shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such directions. (2) The Government may at any time for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by, or as to the regularity of the proceedings of the Board or officer subordinate to the government or the Board acting in exercise of any power or authority conferred by this act or the rules, byelaws and regulations made thereunder, call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by the Board or such officer and may pass such order with reference thereto as it thinks fit: provided that in order shall be reversed unless notice has been given to the parties interested to appear and be heard in support of such order. ( 26 ) THE question as to whether the state can direct allotment of land by way of sale or otherwise in favour of a war widow in our considered opinion does not seriously fall for consideration. ( 26 ) THE question as to whether the state can direct allotment of land by way of sale or otherwise in favour of a war widow in our considered opinion does not seriously fall for consideration. The Housing board might have acted initially at the instance of the State, but it itself issued a memo No. l6034/j3/78, dated 2-6-1989 wherein it was decided to sell the land admeasuring 600 square yards at Rs. 450/~ per square yards, in favour of Smt. Rais jehan Begum. She was informed to pay the sale price at the said rate within a month from the date of receipt of the memo. Such a decision had not been taken at the instance of the State. The Housing Board having regard to the provisions contained in section 45 of the Housing Board Act is entitled to dispose of its own property. ( 27 ) IF it had independently taken a decision to deal with the said property, no exception can be taken. ( 28 ) WHETHER the State has the requisite power to issue any direction to a statutory authority depends upon the scope and purport of the statute as also the nature thereof. ( 29 ) WE may now notice the decisions relied upon by Sri Ramakrishna Rao. In real Food Products Ltd. v. A. P. State electricity Board, 1995 (3) SCC 295 , the apex Court while considering a matter arising out of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 held: the only surviving question is with regard to the nature and effect of the direction given by the State Government under Section 78-A of the Act. The question has to be examined in the context of the facts of the present case which is confined to the charging of a flat rate per H. P. for agricultural pump-sets. The nature of the function of the Board in fixing the tariffs and the manner of its exercise has been considered at length in the earlier decisions of this Court and it does not require any further elaboration in the present case. Section 78-A uses the expression "the Board shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government". Section 78-A uses the expression "the Board shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government". It does appear that the view expressed by the state Government on a question of policy is in the nature of a direction to be followed by the Board in the area of the policy to which it relates. In the context of the function of the Board of fixing the tariffs in accordance with Section 49 read with Section 59 and other provisions of the Act, the Board is to be guided by any such direction of the State government. Where the direction of the state Government, as in the present case, was to fix a concessional tariff for agricultural pump-sets at a flat rate per H. P. , it does relate to a question of policy which the board must follow. However, in indicating the specific rate in a given case, the action of the State Government may be in excess of the power of giving a direction on the question of policy, which the Board, if its conclusion be different, may not be obliged to be bound by. But where the Board considers even the rate suggested by the state Government and finds it to be acceptable in the discharge of its function of fixing the tariffs, the ultimate decision of the Board would not be vitiated merely because it has accepted the opinion of the state Government even about the specific rate. In such a case the Board accepts the suggested rate because that appears to be appropriate on its own view. If the view expressed by the State Government in its direction exceeds the area of policy, the board may not be bound by it unless it takes the same view on merits itself. ( 30 ) IN State of Punjab v. Surinder kumar, 1997 (9) SCC 66 , the Apex Court held: it is seen that in the batch of the writ petitions, admittedly, the Minister was made corespondent and allegations of mala fides came to be made against him. The High Court did not decide that question. ( 30 ) IN State of Punjab v. Surinder kumar, 1997 (9) SCC 66 , the Apex Court held: it is seen that in the batch of the writ petitions, admittedly, the Minister was made corespondent and allegations of mala fides came to be made against him. The High Court did not decide that question. On the other hand, a reading of the order would indicate that the High Court instead directed the respondents to avail of the alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority was directed to go into the merits of the matter and decide it according to law. It is seen that the appellate authority did go into the merits, found that the respondents committed illegalities and irregularities in conducting the business of vending Indian-made foreign liquor. However, in the matter of imposition of penalty the appellate authority had felt it expedient, instead of cancelling the licence, to confine the period from 22-8-1995 till 22- 9-1995, the date on which the High Court granted interim suspension of the operation of the cancellation order as "suspended". It could be seen that in the second batch of writ petitions the Minister was not made a party. It is the settled legal position that the high Court could not have gone into the mala fides and it would not decide the matter on merit on the question of mala fides. In such situation can the Division Bench direct the appellate authority to go into the question of mala fides. It is seen that in the first round of litigation when the High Court had not gone into the question of mala fides, though the Minister was impleaded as a party, it had remitted the matter for disposal on merits. Obviously, the words "might and ought" used in Section 11 of the Civil procedure Code stand in the way and, therefore, it operates as res judicata for raising the same question in the present writ petitions. The High Court could not have gone into that question, muchless giving direction to the appellate authority, namely, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, to go into that question. ( 31 ) THE said decisions, therefore, have no application in the instant case. ( 32 ) THE contention of Mr. The High Court could not have gone into that question, muchless giving direction to the appellate authority, namely, the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, to go into that question. ( 31 ) THE said decisions, therefore, have no application in the instant case. ( 32 ) THE contention of Mr. Ramakrishna rao to the effect that the property in question had vested in the Housing Board and thus, it had no jurisdiction to dispose of the same in favour of a third party the land in question being a park cannot be accepted as a finding of fact has been arrived at that same is not a park. ( 33 ) WE may notice that in support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on decisions of the Apex Court in municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. H. P. C. , 2001 (6) Scale 23 , M. I. Builders pvt, Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam, 1999 (6) SCC 464 and a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 12538 of 1999 where in it was observed : in terms of Section 22 (j) of the 1956 Act, as noticed hereinbefore, the Housing Board, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, may make the provision of parks, play-fields and open space for the benefit of any area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area and the enlargement of existing parks, play-fields, open spaces and approaches. The aforementioned provision clearly goes to show that the Housing Board had no jurisdiction to carry out any other activity, than the one prescribed in the Master Plan layout earmarked as "park". Although there exists a non-abstante clause in both the Acts, the question, which may further arise for consideration, is as to whether such non- abstante clause will have an overriding effect over a later Act viz. , the 1975 Act, which was passed for development of urban areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh. ( 34 ) THE question whether the doctrine of public trust can be applied in a given case would depend upon the nature of the land and right of the people. The respondent housing Board has categorically stated that land in question is not an open land or park. In that view of the matter, the doctrine of public trust is not attracted in the instant case. The respondent housing Board has categorically stated that land in question is not an open land or park. In that view of the matter, the doctrine of public trust is not attracted in the instant case. ( 35 ) THE contention of the Housing board that the husband of the unofficial respondent was not a war widow in view of the intelligence report cannot be accepted. In the investigation report itself it was clearly stated that the respondent is a war widow. ( 36 ) IT is unfortunate that despite the fact that the land in question had been allotted in favour of the third respondent as far back in 1979, the possession had not been handed over. It is a clear case where the respondent had suffered a lot for no fault of her part.-However, we may place on record that on a query made by us to sri Mahmood Ali, the learned Counsel appearing for unofficial respondent as to whether his client would agree to pay the cost of the land at the rate of Rs. 450/- per square yard, he agreed to the aforementioned condition. ( 37 ) WE, therefore, in modification of the judgment passed by the learned single judge, direct that in the event of deposit of the price of the land calculated at the rate of Rs. 450/- per square yard, the possession of the land upon registration of the requisite instrument, shall be handed over within a period of one month thereafter. ( 38 ) THESE appeals are dismissed with the aforementioned modifications with costs. Counsel fee assessed at Rs. 5,000/- payable by writ petitioners.