The doctrine of promissory estoppel applies against the government, preventing it from changing policy arbitrarily after creating legitimate expectations in individuals.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Divya Adepu, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 43, 120, 121, 181, 182 and 183 of 2009 and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in W.A. No. 131 of 2009.

2. Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority.

3. Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants for the State of Telangana in W.A. Nos. 131, 139, 367 and 372 of 2009 and for the respondents-State in all the appeals.

4. Mr. L. Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. K.R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 474 of 2009 and for the respondents in W.A. No. 139 of 2009.

5. Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/Housing Board Employees IV-Phase Plot Allottees Welfare Association in W.A. No. 525 of 2009 and appearing for the respondent No. 1 in W.A. Nos. 367 and 372 of 2009.

6. All these intra Court appeals have arisen out of the common order dated 30.12.2008 passed in W.P. Nos. 8048 of 2001, 19790, 19795 and 22657 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge.

7. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and the parties are one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed in the writ petitions.

9. All the writ petitions were filed seeking the same relief against the same respondents, therefore, they were clubbed and heard together and passed the impugned common order dated 30.12.2008 in W.P. Nos. 8048 of 2001 and 19790, 19795 and 22657 of 2006 by the learned Single Judge.

10. All the writ petitions were filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to register the plots in Sy. Nos. 964 and 1009 of Kukatpally village in Phase-IV of the lay out plan prepared for APHB Employees Housing Scheme in the individual names of the Housing Board Employees in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 2, Housing Department, dated 10.01.1991 and to declare the G.O.Ms. No. 32, Housing (HB-II) Department, dated 12.09.2006, issued by the 1st respondent, (then Government of Andhra Pradesh) as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction.

11. The case of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that the petitioners are the members of the A.P. Housing Board Employees Phase-IV Plot Allottees Welfare Association represented by its President, Hyderabad. The said Association was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Public Registered Societies Act, 1950 with registered No. 4567 of 2000.

BRIEF HISTORY:

12. All the members of the writ petitioners of the Association were appointed in the year 1981-82.

13. In the year 1979, the A.P. Housing Board conducted demand survey in all major towns of the State for construction of houses for general public which included the housing scheme at Kukatpally. At that point of time, the employees working in the Housing Board made a requisition for allotment of plots and for the purpose of allotment of plots, the Board has prescribed minimum service, income limits and allotted 233 plots at Kukatpally to its employees and collected the cost of the land at Rs. 2.25 per square yard. Similarly, the Board allotted plots to the employees under Phase-II and Phase-III, Kukatpally collecting Rs. 2.25 per square yard. The said action of the Board was ratified by the State.

14. In the year 1981-82, members of the petitioner Association were appointed in the Housing Board in various categories.

15. In the year 1986, the Board has conducted a demand survey among the employees who were appointed on or before 31.12.1984 for allotment of developed plots duly prescribing certain eligibility criteria like minimum service of five years and income criteria.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

16. The members of the Association are the employees of the A.P. Housing Board and they were allotted plots in phase-IV of the lay o