HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORDER

Heard Mr. C. Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Housing Board appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s. Bharadwaj Associates, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This writ petition is filed in the nature of writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned Appellate Order dated 07.12.2015 passed by respondent No.1 in C.M.A. No.44 of 2015.

3. Petitioner No.1, A.P. Housing Board (APHB), is a statutory body incorporated under Section - 3 of the A.P. Housing Board Act, 1956 (for short ‘Act, 1956’), for the purpose of taking up construction of houses in a big way to meet the growing demand for residential accommodation in cities and towns.

4. Respondent No.2 herein is the allottee of HIG House No.30, Phase-V, Venture IV, KPBH Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

5. Adjacent to the aforesaid house, on eastern side, there is a stray piece of vacant land admeasuring 205.83 square yards (which is hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’) belonging to APHB.

6. As per Rule - 29 of the APHB rules, 1957, sale of land by APHB shall be by public auction. The proviso to the said Rule provides that the procedure of public auction may be dispensed with in the case of sale of any land with previous concurrence of the Government.

7. In exercise of the powers under the said proviso, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.38, dated 30.05.1997, permitting the APHB to sell stray pieces of land of less than 100 square yards, not required by APHB and which have no commercial value, to the adjacent house owners at market value without conducting public auction, subject to obtaining no objection certificate from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and further providing that all lands in excess of 100 square yards and all lands having commercial value have to be sold by way of public auction.

8. Since the land adjacent to the house allotted to respondent No.2 is more than 100 square yards, it can be sold only by way of public action.

9. While the said G.O.Ms.No.38 was in force and covering the subject land, the Government has issued another G.O.Ms.No.71, dated

17.09.2001, relaxing the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.38 in respect of respondent No.2 and some other persons and permitting sale of land adjacent to respondent No.2’s house which is more than 100 square yards and some other plots in the said Colony, to the respective adjacent house owners without conducting public auction.

10. After obtaining consent from respondent No.2, vide its letter dated 30.11.2001, APHB allotted the said adjacent land to respondent No.2 @ Rs.1,632/- per square yard and respondent No.2 arranged payment of entire amount of Rs.3,35,915/- to the APHB. However, no sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.2. Thus, ownership of the subject land was not transferred to respondent No.2 and it remained with the APHB.

11. While so, respondent No.2 unauthorizedly and illegally occupied/encroached upon the subject land and erected barbed wire fence with cuddy stones around the plot without permission of APHB. Thus, it amounts to illegal and unauthorized encroachment of APHB’s land by respondent No.2.

12. When W.P. No.26653 of 2001 filed by one Mr. G.

Raveendra Babu, allottee of plot No.38 HIS came up for consideration. Vide order dated 14.10.2003, this Court modified G.O.Ms.No.71 and directed that any disposal of plots belonging to APHB in excess of 100 square yards, shall be by public auction only i.e., in terms of G.O.Ms.No.38 and that if even after holding three successive public auctions any such stray piece of land fails to fetch the upset price, then only it can be sold to the adjacent house owner duly obtaining orders from the Government. Therefore, APHB cancelled the allotment of the said land made in favour of respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 23.06.2004 and also refunded the entire amount of Rs.3,35,915/- informing that the sale offer made to him was withdrawn.

13. C