N.ASHOK KUMAR Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Proceedings of the A.P. Housing Board (hereinafter "Board"), the respondent herein, vide Notice No. 10258/23/E/J8/86, dated 19.5.2006 declining to allot land in favour of the petitioner, is under challenge in this writ petition as illegal and violative of the orders of this Court in WP No. 3865 of 1983, dated 5.9.1988, WP No. 17309 of 1994, dated 29.11.1994, confirmed in WA No. 848 of 1995, dated 14.9.1995 and consequently to direct the Board to provide alternative site to the petitioner. The petitioner was a lessee of the Board in respect of the premises bearing No. 23/E, Mojamjahi Market, Hyderabad. There were other lessees like M/s. Sulekha Brothers. The tenants were asked to vacate their respective premises as it was proposed to construct multistoried buildings. It appears that several writ petitions were filed in this Court to forbear the Board from evicting them without providing alternative sites. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Board to offer the lessees alternative sites. The orders were confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 1258 of 1986 dated 17.8.1986. The petitioner also filed a similar Writ Petition No. 3869 of 1983. The writ petition was disposed of on 5.9.1988, (later modified on 16.11.1988), basing upon the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1258 of 1986, with a direction to the Board to offer the petitioner on lease an area of 500 square yards at Kukatpally. The Board was also given option to sell away the land at the same rate charged by it in respect of similarly situated persons. The petitioner was offered lease of 500 square yards of land at Kukatpally on a rent of Rs. 1,238/-per month. By a subsequent letter, dated 14.8.1992, the petitioner was offered sale of the land, which is situated adjacent to Telephone Department at Kukatpally at Rs. 400/- per square yard. The petitioner was accordingly directed to remit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- within a month. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation dated 2.9.1992 stating that the land was not suitable for business and that it is an interior land, situated at 2 to 3 Kms., away from the National Highway. He, therefore, requested to allot an alternative land similar to M/s. Sulekha Brothers abutting the National Highway. He expressed his willingness to pay the same cost as was fixed in the case of M/s. Sulekha Brothers. In the meanwhile, the land adjacent to M/s. Sulekha Brothers was put up for auction. The petitioner, therefore, filed WP No. 17309 of 1994 questioning the auction notification and for a declaration that he is entitled to have 500 square yards of land.

(2.) The writ petition was opposed by the Board contending that the case of the petitioner was not similar to that of M/s. Sulekha Brothers and that M/s. Sulekha Brothers was offered site in the year 1986 at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard and the same offer could not be given to the petitioner. This Court, did not accept the said contention and held that M/s. Sulekha Brothers was also sought to be evicted like the petitioner and therefore an alternative site was given to it. It was observed that the price offered to M/s. Sulekha Brothers might not be the same as that offered to the petitioner but the site offered to the petitioner cannot be dissimilar to the one given to M/s. Sulekha Brothers, since both were in the same position, having suffered eviction for the purpose of fulfilling the need of the Board. The writ petition was disposed of on 29.11.1994 ultimately holding thus:

(3.) The Board challenged the aforesaid order in WA No. 848 of 1995. The writ appeal was disposed of on 14.9.1995, affirming the order in the writ petition with a modification. The learned Division Bench observed that there was no justification in directing the Board as has been done in the writ order to allot a particular plot or to settle a particular price of land. However, as the facts of the case revealed wherein the Board had made allotments of suitable business sites to similarly situated persons, found that the same treatment was not given to the petitioner. The learned Division Bench, therefore, directed that the Board must abide by its undertaking and allot a suitable piece of land where the petitioner could shift his business from the present premises as it has been done in the cases of other similarly situated persons. Ultimately, the following order was passed: