IDPL EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY Vs. HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to declare the order bearing No. 8109/MP2/ HUDA/94, dated 10-12-1999, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondent to release the draft layout.

(2.) The petitioner is a Society. Its case, in brief, is that ft is the owner of the property in question admeasuring Ac. 50-00. situated in S. No. 163, having purchased the same in the year 1987, and is in continuous possession and enjoyment thereof since then. In the year 1987 the petitioner-society approached the Government for change of land use from conservation zone to residential zone, under the A.P. Urban Development Act, 1975. The Government after considering the representation of the petitioner-society issued draft notification on 8-12-1989 inviting objections, subject to certain conditions. On 25-7-1994 the Government addressed a letter to the Vice-Chairman, HUDA, to confirm the draft notification subject to conditions mentioned therein. In pursuance of the said letter, the respondent vide his letter, dated 28-7-1994, directed the petitioner-society and another society to remit an amount of Rs. 4,04,687.00towards developmental charges and an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 towards processing charges within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the said letter and that in case the said amount was not paid, the Government will be informed to close the case. It is further contended that since the petitioner-society paid the said amounts on 5-8-1994 in compliance with the said directions, the respondent by his letter, dated 2-9-1994, requested the Government to approve the draft notification by issuing a GO and accordingly the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 511, dated 20-9-1994, permitting the petitioner-society to change the land use from conservation to resideraial subject to two conditions mentioned therein. On 18-11-1994, after receiving approval of the final Notification from the Government, the petitioner-society applied to the respondent for draft lay out. In spite of several representations made by the petitioner-society, there is neither any reply from the respondent nor the lay out has been released. Therefore, the petitioner-society initially filed the present writ petition for the following relief:

(3.) While admitting the writ petition on 27-2-1998, this Court granted interim directions in WPMP No. 3837 of 1998, which are as follows: