GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. C KONDAPI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.A.No. 1080/88 and W.A. No. 1088/88 go hand in hand together over a common area of facts and share common questions of law between themselves. Hence both the cases have been taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) W.A.No. 1080/88 has been filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department and two others against the judgment dated 23-2-1988 passed in W.P. No. 2878 of 1986 mainly on the ground that the learned single Judge committed an error in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Government to sell the Government land to the petitioner, who is a private party, at a fixed price. It is also averred that the petitioner, in whose favour the judgment of the learned single Judge had been passed, had no legal right to claim the Government land and hence the plea of mandamus on his behalf is totally unwarranted.

(3.) W.A. No. 1088/88 is, on the other hand, filed by the writ petitioner Mr. C. Kondapi against the same judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23-2-1988 passed in W.P. No. 2876/86 stating, inter alia, that the learned single Judge erred in directing the Government to allot the land in question at the rate of Rs. 250.00 per square yard when admittedly apart and parcel of the same land had been sold to another person at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per square yard. It is further averred by the petitioner, who is the appellant in W.A. No. 1088/88, that the learned single Judge should have taken into consideration that the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad had granted permission to construct compound wall on payment of betterment charges for the entire extent including 300 square yards which have become the subject matter of the writ petition and consequently the writ appeals as well. It is further contended by the writ petitioner that an extent of 148 square yards, abutting the main road, belonging to the petitioner, was taken over by the Government for the purpose of laying a road by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and a compensation at the rate of Rs. 130.00per square yard plus the solatium of 30% has been fixed for the acquisition of the land of the appellant (writ petitioner). These are the broad features of the case under which both the writ appeals have been filed by both sides.