APHC010139362014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27899 OF 2014 Between: 1. N.Subbalakshmi, W/o Rama Mohan Rao, aged 42 years, R/o D.N0.23/255-A, G.T.Street, Proddutur, Kadapa District. S.Anwar Pasha, S/o Sultan Mohiddin, aged 43 years, R/o D.No.23/255- A, G.T.Street, Proddutur, Kadapa District. S.Moulali, S/o Noor Saheb, aged 41 years, R/o D.No.23/347-6, Islampuri Street Proddutur, Kadapa District. K.S.Nayab Rasool, S/o Abdul Rasool, aged 40 years, R/o D.No.22/423-1, Moulana Azad Street, Proddutur, Kadapa District. Y.S.Mohammad, S/o Mahaboob Basha, aged 43 years, R/o D.No.25/1, Rajaji Road, Proddutur, Kadapa District. K.Koteswari, W/o Chandra Sekhar Reddy aged 41 years, R/o D.No.23/255-a, G.T.Street, Proddutur, Kadapa District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...Petitioners AND 1. Commissioner Proddutur Muncipality, Proddutur, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. 2. Special Officer Proddutur Muncipality, Proddutur,Y.S.R.Kadapa District. ...Respondents % Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned action of respondents in proceeding to reauction of the house plots allotted to the petitioners without even considering the grievance of the petitioners vide representation s dt. 23-07-2011 and 30-12-2011 inspite of orders of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.No. 10921/12 dt.17-04-2012 and further action in proceeding with notices dt. 15-07-2011 and 15-11-2011 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of MunicipalitiesAct. lA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 34940 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondents not to take any action for reallotting the plots of the petitioners in favour of third parties pending disposal of the above writ petition^ Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KALEEMULLA S Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G LAKSHMI NARAYANA (SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES) The Court made the following order: APHC010139362014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27899 OF 2014 Between: N.Subbalakshmi, and Others ...PETITIONER{S) AND Commissioner Proddutur Muncipality and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.KALEEMULLAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27899 OF 2014 ORDER; The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in proceeding to re-auction the house plots allotted to the Petitioners, without even considering the grievance of the petitioners vide representations dated 23.07.2011 and 30.12.2011, is contrary to the order dated 17.04.2012 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 10921 of 2012. 2. The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition are as follows;- The Respondents/ Municipality had issued a Notification proposing public auction for auctioning the house plots, as per Layout Plan No.34/96 Nethaji Nagar, Bollavaram Village, Proddatur located in Sy.No. 410 to 423 among other survey numbers. The petitioners participated in the auction held on 07.05.2008 and they were declared as highest bidders for their respective Plots viz.. Plot Nos. 594, 595, 696, 597, 606, 607, 608, 609, 612 and 621. 3. As per terms of contract, the successful bidders have to pay 1/4*'^ of Sale Price towards initial deposit including Earnest Money Deposit and the rest of the amount shall be payable within two months from the date of auction. Pursuant thereof, confirmation and provisional allotment letter was issued calling upon them to pay the balance amount with simple interest at 18% p.a. if there is delay in payment of amounts. It is pleaded that the amounts were eventually paid in entirety by the Petitioners during the period 2010-2012. 4. As there was delay in payment of amounts due to the Respondents the Petitioner gave representations seeking for concession of interest on delayed payments and agreeing to pay the interest at 8% rather than 18% and 20% mentioned in the terms of contract. The Respondent Authority without considering the representation issued final notice on 15.07.2011 and 15.11.2011 for making payment. At that stage, the Petitioner filed W.P.No. 10921 of 2012 questioning the said notices as they were issued without considering the representation of the petitioner for seeking concession of interest. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition dated 17.04.2012 directing the Respondents to consider the representations made by the Petitioners, but same is not being considered. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 5. Learned counsel for the’ Petitioners would submit that the Respondent/ Authorities may be directed for concessional rate of interest. considering the social status of the petitioners and enable them to pay the amount as mentioned in the terms of auction. 6. The Respondents filed Counter-Affidavit, wherein the payment of amounts in favour of the Petitioners was not disputed. It is stated that auction of the properties was for the purpose of generating income, so as to utilize the same for development and delayed payments defeats the very purpose. It is also stated that despite granting extension of time, the Petitioners could not come forward to pay the amount within time. 7. Heard Sri S. Kaleemulla, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents/ Municipality. 8. As per terms of the auction, the Petitioners had agreed to pay the interest on delayed amount and having agreed, it would not be open to the Petitioners to turn around and seek for concession of the rate of interest from the Municipality. Apart from that, this Court cannot alter the contractual clause. ) J It is also to be noted that it is not the case of the Petitioners that the rate of interest mentioned in the terms of auction was usurious in nature, warranting interference by this Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to alter the rate of interest as sought by the Petitioners. However, it would be just to grant some time to the Petitioners to pay the balance amounts. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with following directions; i) The Respondent Municipality shall specify the amount due as on date within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii) The Petitioners shall pay the balance amount due to the Respondent/ Municipality, within a period of six (06) months therefrom; iii) on such payment made by the Petitioners, within time as specified, the Respondent/ Municipality shall execute a Registered Sale Deeds and hand over the possession of the house property to the respective Petitioners; iv) in the event of default of payment of amounts by the Petitioners, the Respondent/ Municipality is at liberty to re-auction the property. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR 7 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Commissioner, Proddutur Muncipality, Proddutur, Y.S.R.Kadapa.-- District. 2. The Special Officer Proddutur Muncipality, Proddutur,Y.S.R.Kadapa District. 3. One CC to Sri Kaleemulla S Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri G Lakshmi Narayana (SC for Municipalities) Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:26/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 27899 OF 2014 ^ n JUL 2025 ^ ^ , Current Section a: m DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS