ORDER : T. Vinod Kumar This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “ …. Declaring the action of respondents in issuing the Notification No.Stray Pieces/Auction/EE(WD)/KKP/2025 dated 09-01-2025, published in Eenadu on 10-01-2025 and on 16-01-2025 in Times of India English News Paper and on 19-01-2025 published in Andhra Jyothi News Paper Auctioning 24 Nos. of Stray Pieces of KPHB Colony, MM District, as is where condition at Housing Board Community Hall at Phase-I and Phase-II, KPHB Colony, Near Temple Bus Stop, Medhcal Malkajgiri District on 24-01-2025 from 11:00 AM onwards as illegal and arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to GO Ms.No.6 Housing (HB-II) Department dt.29-03-2011 and consequently set-aside the Notification vide Notification No. Stray Pieces /Auction / EE(WD)/KKP/2025 dated 09-01-2025 (published in Eenadu) on 10-01-2025, 16-01-2025 (published in Times of India) and 19-01-2025 (Published in Andhra Jyothi) issued by Respondent No.4, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”. 2. Heard Sri G.Mohan Rao, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M.Roopender, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents, and perused the record. 3. Petitioner contends that it is a Welfare Association formed by the House and Plot owners of Phase-XV of Kukatpally Housing Board (KPHB) Colony, Hyderabad; that the 4 th respondent had issued notification dated 10-01-2025 proposing to conduct public auction for disposal of 24 Nos. of house sites terming them as ‘stray pieces’ in KPHB Colony on ‘as is where is condition’; that the aforesaid notification was published in the news papers calling upon the interesting bidders to take part in the public auction scheduled on 24-01-2025. 4. Petitioner further contends that as per G.O.Ms.No.6 Housing (HB-II) Department dt.29-03-2011, the lands admeasuring less than 100 sq. yards are permitted to be sold to the adjacent house owners on current market value without public auction subject to condition that No Objection Certificate is obtained from the concerned Municipal Corporation/ Municipality /Local Body in case of residential areas; that the petitioner, on issuance of the aforesaid notification, had approached respondent No.4 and requested them to allot stray pieces of land to them by expressing its readiness to purchase the aforesaid stray pieces of land as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.6. 5. 5. It is the further case of petitioner that as no response is received from the 4 th respondent, it once again gave a written representation on 20-01-2025; and that in spite of petitioner’s sincere efforts to convince the 4 th respondent to sell the aforesaid stray pieces of land to the petitioner, the 4 th respondent is not considering the request and bent upon to proceed with the public auction contrary to the guidelines stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 29-03-2011. 6. It is the further case of petitioner that as per the approved final layout dated 28-05-2015, the 4 th respondent is required to maintain 100 and 200 feet road in the layout as per Master Plan; that the proposed stray pieces of land/plot being brought to sale, are adjacent to existing 80 feet main road, which is required to be widened to 100 feet road as per the condition of layout sanctioned; and that respondent No.4 without considering the aforesaid condition imposed while sanctioning the final layout, is seeking to sell the stray pieces of land adjoining to 80 feet road without making a provision for widening of the road to 100 feet as per Master Plan, which action it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the sanctioned layout. 7. It is also the further case of petitioner that respondents while obtaining sanction for the layout, had left the stray pieces of land to serve as lung space, ventilation and recreation purposes, and the said open spaces vests with the local bodies i.e. Municipality/Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, and as such, the same cannot be permitted to be sold in violation of the conditions stipulated in the final layout. 8. Petitioner further contended that the stray pieces of land which are now sought to be put to public auction by respondent authorities have not been assigned with any number in the layout and as such, are required to be kept open by the respondent authorities at all times. 9. Per contra, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents would submit that though the authorities had proposed to sell through public auction in all 22 stray pieces of plots in Phases-V, VII, IX and XV; that the authorities have received bids in respect of 5 plots against 17 stray pieces of plots in Phase-XV that were put up for public auction. 10. 10. Learned Advocate General would submit that the respondents have received bids from the intending purchasers only in respect of plot Nos.6, 9, 18, 19 and 20 and insofar as other plots of Phase-XV is concerned, no bids are received, and thus, no action is taken in respect of said plots. 11. Learned Advocate General would further submit that the present Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable inasmuch as the petitioner claiming itself to be a Welfare Association of House and Plot owners of Phase-XV, cannot seek for sale of the stray parcel of land in its favour by submitting representation. 12. Learned Advocate General would also contend that none of the adjacent house owners have approached the respondent authorities expressing their intention to purchase the adjacent stray bits in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 for the respondent authorities to consider the request, much less have authorized the petitioner to agitate their case. 13. Learned Advocate General further submits that even as per G.O.Ms.No.6, request of adjacent house owner for sale of stray pieces of land can be considered only if the respondent authorities are of the view that the said stray piece of land less than 100 sq. yards cannot be used by it for other purpose or where there is no access other than the allottee’s land i.e. adjacent house owner’s land. 14. It is further contended by the learned Advocate General that insofar as stray pieces of land which are brought to public auction, are all having independent access, and thus, the 4 th respondent had found that the same can be used for other purposes and thus, the decision of the 4 th respondent in seeking to bring the aforesaid stray pieces of land to auction cannot be said as contrary to the aforesaid G.O. 15. Learned Advocate General would further contend that the respondents while obtaining final layout had earmarked an area of Ac.5.65 cents equivalent to 10.01% as open space for public purpose and amenities which are clearly identified in the layout and the stray pieces of land which are sought to be auctioned do not form part of the said extent of Ac.5.65 cents for the petitioner to claim that the said stray pieces of land having vested with the local authorities and the respondents being denuded of their authority to deal with the same. 16. 16. Learned Advocate General would submit that as per the sanctioned layout, the authorities are required to maintain 100 feet and 200 feet road as per Master Plan, while the plots which are now proposed to be auctioned are all abutting to 100 feet road; that though the width of the road is shown as 80 feet in the layout, the authorities have already provided for 10 feet Right of Way (ROW) on either side of the road and taking the aforesaid ROW, there exists 100 feet road already; and that the said fact would be evident from a closer look of the layout, which shows that 100 feet road is as per Master Plan including ROW while motorable road is 80 feet. 17. Learned Advocate General would further contend that the present Writ Petition as filed by the petitioner on 22-01-2025 is only intended to stall the auction of the stray pieces of land, so that the petitioner claiming itself to be an Association can make use of the plots for their benefit without having any right or interest therein. 18. Learned Advocate General thus submits that the present Writ Petition as filed is misconceived and seeks for its dismissal. 19. I have taken note of respective contentions urged. 20. Firstly, the claim of the petitioner is self-contradictory. The petitioner on one hand claims itself to be a Welfare Association and that the stray pieces of land put to public auction are meant for ventilation and recreation purpose, and on the other hand is claiming the said plots to be sold to adjacent owners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6. If only the adjacent plots are earmarked as open spaces to serve as lung space, the same cannot be sold even to adjacent owner as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjuman E Shiate Ali and others Vs. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group and others, [ (2020) 20 SCC 698 ] in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 by considering the same as stray bit. 21. Gulmohar Area Societies Welfare Group and others, [ (2020) 20 SCC 698 ] in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 by considering the same as stray bit. 21. Further, though the petitioner, which is a Welfare Association, claims to have approached the respondent authorities for purchase of the stray pieces of land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 by submitting representation and the same not being considered by respondent No.4, it is to be noted that it is only an adjacent owner of stray piece of land can seek for sale of the adjacent stray piece of land in his favour and not an Association as all the said stray pieces of land cannot be treated as being adjacent to the office of the Association. 22. Further, it is also to be noted that none of the adjacent owners have joined the present Writ Petition as petitioner in respect of any specific stray pieces of land for the petitioner to claim as if the Writ Petition is filed in representative capacity. 23. Though, on behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the stray pieces of lands are to serve as ventilation and recreation and having vested with the local authorities, a perusal of the sanctioned layout clearly demarcates the open areas intended to serve as lung space and recreation space, and the same having vested with the local Municipal authority under gift settlement deed dated 19-03-2015, do not include the stray pieces of land which are now sought to be sold by way of publication. 24. Further, it is to be noted that the petitioner, which claims itself to be a Welfare Association, cannot maintain the present Writ Petition on its own, as it has no fundamental right under Article 226 of the Constitution or it cannot be said that its fundamental rights have been violated. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahinder Kumar Gupta Vs. Unior of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, (1995) 1 SCC 85 had observed that an Association cannot file a Writ Petition as it has no fundamental right under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court equally applies when it comes to a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. The law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court equally applies when it comes to a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 26. Further, it is also be noted that in order to maintain a Writ Petition, locus standi of the person approaching the Court is also required to be looked into by considering as to whether he is personally affected or its fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded for it to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (See : Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P., [ (2001) 4 SCC 734 ]) 27. It is also equally settled position of law that a person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission, and that a person having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a party in the lis unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. (See : Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. Collector, [ (2012) 4 SCC 407 ] ). 28. Who can be considered s an ‘aggrieved party’ in order file a Writ Petition has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court S.P.Gupta & Others Vs. President of India and others, [ AIR 1982 SC 149 , wherein it was held as under: “14. …… a person aggrieved must be a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something. …” 29. In view of the settled position of law as set out above, the petitioner which is a Welfare Association cannot be considered as an aggrieved party muchless having any right to maintain the present Writ Petition on account of the action of the respondents. 30. Thus, the Writ Petition as filed is devoid of merit and it is accordingly, dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Hyderabad within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 31. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.