ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“…to issue any appropriate Writ order or directions more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for allotment of plots to the petitioners by the impugned proceedings Letter No.3537/EO/E1/GHMC/2011/174, dated 26.07.2011, as illegal, unjust discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to allot the plots to the petitioners under the 1974 HUDCO Housing Scheme at Bathukammakunta, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad and pass such other order or orders…”

2. Heard Mr. L. Anand, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the application of the petitioners for allotment of land was rejected vide impugned proceedings dated 26.07.2011 solely on account of specific objections raised by the Bathukammakunta, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad Welfare Society, stating that the petitioners are not members of the said Society.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that similarly situated persons had earlier challenged such rejection in Civil Appeal Nos.6986–6987 of 1994 and batch, and that M/s. Thulasi Cooperative Society, Hyderabad had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein certain guidelines were framed for equitable distribution of the acquired land with the following directions:-

(I) The directions contained in the judgment of the High Court are set aside;

(II) The land acquisition proceedings covered by the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Acquisition Act issued in G.O.Rt.No.68 dated 04.06.1975 in respect of Ac.18.03 guntas of land stand revived and shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today;

(III) The concerned authorities constituted under the Acquisition Act shall decide the compensation payable to the land owner in accordance with the provisions of the Act;

(IV) The Government shall nominate a Committee comprising at least three Secretaries to the Government for distributing the acquired land equitably among deserving persons in order to carry out the purpose of acquisition and to balance the equities between various persons, whether they belong to one or the other society or are not members of either society;

(V) M/s. Thulasi Cooperative Housing Society is at liberty to work out its rights as against the land owner in appropriate proceedings;

(VI) Applications under Section 20 of the Ceiling Act, said to be pending since 1976, shall be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.”

5. Placing reliance on the said judgment, learned counsel would contend that, as per Guideline No.(IV), the Government was directed to nominate a Committee comprising three Secretaries to the Government for distributing the acquired land equitably among eligible persons, so as to balance the claims of various persons, irrespective of their membership in one or the other society. It is, therefore, contended that the said principles would squarely apply to the case of the present petitioners.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would contend that the said case pertains to M/s. Thulasi Cooperative Society and that the issues involved therein are distinct and not applicable to the present case.

7. However, learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would apply to the present case as well, particularly when the rejection of the petitioners’ application is solely on the ground of no