Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 465 (TS)

T. Bhajrang, HYD v. Govt. Of A. P.

2025-04-29

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Sri K. Siddharth Rao, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri C. Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Housing Board appearing for 2 nd respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, he is in possession of 48.33 Sq.yards of land situated adjacent to Block No.7, Pay & Accounts Office of Mukarram Jahi Road, on the way to Exhibition Grounds, since last 25 years uninterruptedly. He is running a Tea Stall in the said land. His possession was also recorded in the records and proceedings of 2 nd respondent and the same has been acknowledged by both the respondents in various proceedings. 3. It is further contended by petitioner that 1 st respondent has issued G.O.Ms.No.20, Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 11.06.1984 framing certain policy guidelines to be adopted and followed by 2 nd respondent on the subject of disposal of stray pieces of land which are less than 100 Sq.yards in size other than footpaths and road margins, belonging to it, on payment of market value. 4. Pursuant to the said G.O., petitioner has submitted a representation to the respondents stating that he is ready to pay the market value and requesting them to allot the said land in his favour. Respondents have not considered the same. Therefore, he has filed a Writ Petition vide W.P.No.21901 of 1994. Vide order dated 23.03.1995, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the said Writ Petition directing 2 nd respondent to fix the market value of the said land. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, respondents preferred an intra-court appeal vide W.A.No.849 of 1995. The same was dismissed on 13.10.1995. Thereafter also, petitioner approached 2 nd respondent with a request to fix the market value in terms of the order dated 23.03.1995 in Writ Petition No.21901 of 1994. Subsequently, on 11.11.1996, 2 nd respondent has issued a notice calling for the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,10,299/- within a period of one month for the extent of 47 Sq.yards of land held in his possession. In the said notice, 2 nd respondent informed the petitioner that no negotiations would be accepted from him. Subsequently, on 11.11.1996, 2 nd respondent has issued a notice calling for the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.9,10,299/- within a period of one month for the extent of 47 Sq.yards of land held in his possession. In the said notice, 2 nd respondent informed the petitioner that no negotiations would be accepted from him. Aggrieved by the said notice, petitioner has filed another Writ Petition vide W.P.No.26839 of 1996 contending that 2 nd respondent did not fix the market value and the said notice dated 11.11.1996 is contrary to the order dated 23.03.1995 in Writ Petition No.21901 of 1994. Thereupon, vide order dated 29.09.2008, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the said W.P.No.26839 of 1996. The conclusive portion of the said order dated 29.09.2008 reads as under: “I therefore do not find any justification in allowing the Housing Board to enhance the market value by 54% above Rs.10,000/- per Sq.yard. I do not also find any justification for the Housing Board to charge the encroachment fee fixed by them for the period beyond November, 1995. Therefore, subject to the payment of market value at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per sq. yard as determined by the Housing Board and together with the encroachment fee for the period between December, 1994 to November, 1995 at the rate of Rs.6267.37 per month and Rs.150/- and Rs.50/- towards preparation of the registration plans and conveyance charges respectively by the petitioner on or before 31.12.2008, the Housing Board is directed to alienate the land under occupation of the writ petitioner to him. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.” 5. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that though the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the respondents to calculate the amount including the market value, registration charges, conveyance charges etc., and inform the same to the petitioner, they have not informed the petitioner on or before 31.12.2008. Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 30.12.2008 to 2 nd respondent with a request to inform the amount to be paid by him so as to enable him to pay the said amount in compliance with the aforesaid order. Therefore, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 30.12.2008 to 2 nd respondent with a request to inform the amount to be paid by him so as to enable him to pay the said amount in compliance with the aforesaid order. On receipt of the said representation, vide letter dated 31.12.2008, 2 nd respondent has informed the petitioner that the total cost of the said land is Rs.5,68,708.44 and as petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- pursuant to the interim order dated 30.01.1997 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996, balance amount to be paid is Rs.4,68,708.44, and thus, directed the petitioner to pay the said amount within one month from the date of the said letter. 6. It is also the specific contention of petitioner that vide Demand Draft bearing No.134063 dated 29.01.2009 drawn on State Bank of India, he has paid an amount of Rs.4,68,710/-. Even then, 2 nd respondent is not executing a registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the subject property. Therefore, he has filed the present Writ Petition. 7. Vide order dated 11.08.2010, considering the fact that the right of the petitioner to claim regularization under G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 11.06.1984 is crystallized and as the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.4,68,710/- in compliance with the order dated 29.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh while admitting this Writ Petition, directed respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner, not to create third party interest and not to dispossess him from the subject property. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2 nd respondent would contend that vide order dated 29.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the petitioner to pay the entire amount within one month i.e., on or before 31.12.2008, but, the petitioner failed to pay the same. Even in the order dated 02.12.2009 in Contempt Case SR No.4440 of 2009, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed the same. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for registration of the subject property. 9. As discussed supra, vide order dated 29.09.2008, this Court allowed Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996 holding that there is no justification in allowing the Housing Board to enhance the market value by 54% above Rs.10,000/- per sq.yard. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for registration of the subject property. 9. As discussed supra, vide order dated 29.09.2008, this Court allowed Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996 holding that there is no justification in allowing the Housing Board to enhance the market value by 54% above Rs.10,000/- per sq.yard. Further, subject to the payment of market value @ Rs.10,000/- per Sq.yard as determined by the Housing Board and together with encroachment fee for the period from December, 1994, to November, 1995, @ Rs.6267.37 ps per month and Rs.150/- & Rs.50/- towards preparation of the registration plans and conveyance charges respectively by the petitioner on or before 31.12.2008, the Housing Board shall alienate the said land under occupation of the petitioner to him. 10. Thus, 2 nd respondent has to inform the petitioner with regard to the amount to be paid by the petitioner including market value of the land, conveyance charges, registration charges etc., in terms of G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 11.06.1984 and in compliance with the order dated 29.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996. But, he was silent. Further, petitioner has submitted a representation dated 30.12.2008 requesting 2 nd respondent to inform the amount to be paid by him under the aforesaid facts in compliance with the aforesaid order. Thereupon, vide letter dated 31.12.2008, 2 nd respondent has informed the petitioner that he has to pay an amount of Rs.5,68,708.44 ps. but as he has already paid Rs.1,00,000/- pursuant to the interim order dated 30.01.1997, balance to be paid is Rs.4,68,708.44 ps. and he shall pay the same within one (1) month from the date of the said letter, failing which, action will be taken as per rules. It is not in dispute that petitioner has paid the said amount on 29.01.2009 vide Demand Draft No.134063 drawn on State Bank of India. Therefore, 2 nd respondent cannot contend that petitioner has not paid the said amount within one month from the letter dated 31.12.2008. Vide letter dated 31.12.2008, 2 nd respondent itself informed the petitioner that he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,68,708.44 ps. Accordingly, vide Demand Draft dated 29.01.2009, he has paid the said amount. Having received the said amount of Rs.4,68,708.44 ps., now, 2 nd respondent cannot contend that petitioner did not pay the amount within the aforesaid time limit. Vide letter dated 31.12.2008, 2 nd respondent itself informed the petitioner that he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.4,68,708.44 ps. Accordingly, vide Demand Draft dated 29.01.2009, he has paid the said amount. Having received the said amount of Rs.4,68,708.44 ps., now, 2 nd respondent cannot contend that petitioner did not pay the amount within the aforesaid time limit. Therefore, the said contention is contrary to the order dated 29.09.2008 in Writ Petition No.26839 of 1996 and letter dated 31.12.2008 of 2 nd respondent. 11. In the light of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing 2 nd respondent to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner with regard to the subject property within one (1) month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.