The court ruled that equal treatment under Article 14 necessitates the Government to sell contested land to the appellant, recognizing longstanding claims and equity principles.

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/- per square yard when admittedly a part and parcel of the same land had been sold to another person at the rate of Rs. 25/- 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/- per 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.

4. Now a brief look at the salient facts of the case would be proper so that the area of controversy arising in this matter may be clear. The case of the petitioner in a nut - shell is that he entered into an agreement of sale for purchasing vacant site measuring 4000 Square Yards, situate at Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, with one Mirza Amjad Ali Khan on 3-5-1962. However, another person, by name Imtiaz Ali Khan, encroached upon 700 Square Yards on the western side thus reducing the total extent of the land in the possession of the writ petitioner to 3,300 square yards. The petitioner's vendor refused to execute a sale deed thereby compelling the petitioner to file a suit in the year 1964 which was decreed and an appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed. After retirement from his foreign assignment the petitioner came to Hyderabad and filed Execution Petition in which a direction was given to the vendor to execute a sale deed. The sale deed was eventually executed on 2-1-1980. After the execution of the sale deed through Court, the petitioner applied to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for permission to build a compound wall and betterment charges were also paid for the entire extent including the 300 square yards, which is now the subject - m