High Court of Andhra Pradesh
GODA RAGHURAM & RAMESH RANGANATHAN, JJ.
MD. Ammanuallah Ghouri
Versus
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat & Others
Writ Petition Nos. 6814 of 2009, 20453, 25081, 26380, 27874 & 28532 of 2010 & Contempt Case No.1455 of 2010
Decided On : 22-01-2013
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
I. W.P. No.6814 of 2009 and C.C. No.1455 of 2010:
W.P. No.6814 of 2009 is filed in public interest, by a councillor of Zaheerabad Municipality, seeking a declaration from this Court that the action of the respondents in allotting and transferring residential plots in IDSMT colony of Zaheerabad town, without following the conditions of allotment stipulated by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without authority of law. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondents to set aside the sale of plots, and to re-allot them following the prescribed procedure. The petitioner submits that the municipal chairman's family and relatives were allotted seven plots; the vice-chairman's family and relatives were allotted more than twenty plots, of which seven were registered in the name of his wife, six in the name of his sons, and two in the name of his minor daughters; another councillor, a vocal critic of the chairman, was allotted eleven plots; around eighty plots were allotted in favour of municipal councillors and their family; twenty plots were allotted to media representatives and their relatives to ensure their silence; the land, earmarked for open spaces and for public purposes, was encroached upon, sub-divided into plots, and allotted/transferred to third parties; all these plots were registered by the municipal chairman without the approval of the municipal council; Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) plots were sold at Rs.5,330/-per plot when the registration value for such plots was Rs.79,000/-; Middle Income Group (MIG) plots were sold at Rs.18,600/-each though their registration value was Rs.2,10,000/-; and the municipality suffered heavy losses thereby.
This Court, while admitting the Writ Petition on 22.09.2009, directed the District Collector, Medak to personally enquire into the allotment of residential plots, under the IDSMT scheme, by the Zaheerabad Municipality; and to submit a comprehensive report, including whether any plots were allotted to family members and relatives of the chairman, vice-chairman and councillors of Zaheerabad Municipality, the number of plots so allotted, and whether such allotments were in conformity with the guidelines. This Court observed that the enquiry by the District Collector should also cover areas whether any public and transparent process was followed in calling for applications for the purpose of ensuring equitable allotment of plots.
In his counter affidavit dated 28.10.2009, the Secretary to the Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, states that there was no demand for IDSMT plots since the venture was located at a distance of 3 kms from the main town; purchasers of plots had defaulted in instalment payments; the Municipality did not receive any applications during the years 1982 to 1987; 15 applications were received in the year 1987-1988; 114 applications were received in 1988-1989, out of which 104 applicants paid the full amount, and plots were registered in their favour; thereafter the Municipality received, on an average, merely 50 applications each year; the special officer, Zaheerabad Municipality passed a resolution in the year 1994 to re-allot plots only to those who paid the full price; the municipal commissioner, who was the authority designated to implement the scheme, did not follow the prescribed guidelines; he had intimated, vide letter dated 24.10.2009, that 348 plots were allotted after the year 2005 contrary to the guidelines; 14 plots were sub-divided, sold and registered; commercial space, earmarked for public use i.e., for schools and community purposes etc, were also sold without approval of the competent authority; out of 1294 plots, 1115 were sold and registered i.e., 520 plots at Rs.5,330/-each under the EWS category, 260 plots at Rs.14,933/- each under the Lower Income Group (LIG) category, 236 plots at Rs.18,600 each under the MIG category and 63 plots at Rs.21,700/-each under t
A. Umarani v. Co-operative Societies
Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.
Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa
Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala
Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1044 [Para 25]
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee
Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Government of A.P.
Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research v. K.G.S. Bhatt
Deepak Agro Foods v. State of Rajasthan
Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Divisional Manager, Plantation Division v. Munnu Barrick
Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division
Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Gaddam Madhusudhan Reddy v. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration
Gammon India Ltd. v. Union of India
Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation
J.K. Cotton Spg. & Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer
K.M. Kamallula Basha v. District Collector, Chittoor
Kailash Chandra v. Mukundi Lal
Karnataka SRTC v. S. G. Kotturappa
Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan
Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini (1995) 1 SCC 717 [Para 41]
M. Pentiah v. Muddala Veeramallappa
M. V. Janardhan Reddy v. Vijaya Bank
Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya v. Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd.
Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd v. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson Pvt Ltd.
Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies
Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board
Mysore SRTC v. Mirja Khasim Ali Beg
NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA
P. Narayana Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India
Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra
Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. v. Suresh Chand
Punjab National Bank v. Manjeet Singh
R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka
Raj Kumar Soni v. State of U.P.
Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement
Rashpal Malhotra v. Mrs. Saya Rajput
Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey
S.R Venkataraman v. Union of India
Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal AIR 1987 SC 1109 = (1987) 2 SCC 295 [Para 33]
Sagar Cements Ltd. v. State of A.P.
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah
Shakur Basti Shamshan Bhumi Sudhar Samiti v. LT. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education
State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma
State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh
State of Rajasthan v. Gopi Kishan Sen
State of U.P. v. District Judge, Unnao
State of U.P. v. Om Prakash Gupta
Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi
Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain
U.P. Junior Doctors’ Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani
Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
V. C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Administration)
Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore
VET India Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.