1 APHC010572422014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10226/2014 Between: Korada Ramana,srikakulam Dist ...PETITIONER AND Govt Of Ap Scy M A D Hyd Anot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAVI SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV 2 The Court made the following order: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 herein to restore the flat in MIG-IA Nagavalli block-I North facing block in Harita Housing Project, Madhuravada Housing Scheme Visakhapatnam upon payment of the entire amount with interest, and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) initiated a Housing Scheme in the name of Harita at Madhurawada, in an extent of Acs.20-17 cents, to construct 710 flats in different categories. The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of an MIG-IA Flat and deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the application. Subsequently, flats were allotted to various applicants through a lottery system and the alloties are required to pay the sale price of the flats in six installments, through demand drafts (D.D.) or pay orders, in favour of Vice-Chairman of VUDA. The contract for the construction of the flats was entrusted to M/s Jurong infrastructure. However, M/s Jurong infrastructure failed to maintain the stipulated progress and stopped construction work, resorting to litigation. As a result, the authorities have informed all the allottees of the situation through a letter dated 26.12.2013 and modified the installment payment schedule. Acting on the advice of VUDA officials, the petitioner cancelled the D.D. and addressed a letter dated 28.06.2013, requesting a refund of the amount, citing the lack of progress in the project due to legal and contractual issues. Accordingly, the petitioner’s allotment was cancelled vide proceedings Rc.No.A.287/MIG-IA/Haritha/MW HS/G-III, dated 22.07.2013, 3 and a cheque for Rs.16,19,600/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank was given to the petitioner. Now, as the construction of the project has resumed and is progressing rapidly, with completion anticipated within 3-4 months, the petitioner approached the VUDA officials requesting the restoration of the allotment. But, the same has been rejected by the authorities. 3. Heard Sri Mr.A. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents, on counter, submits that the petitioner was provisionally allotted an MIG-IA flat under Harita Housing Scheme vide office proceedings A.No.287/MIG-IA/harita/G6, dated 08.05.2010. Due to the cessation of work by the construction agency and the subsequent filing of a petition, the completion of the construction work was delayed and could not be completed according to the original schedule. These facts were duly communicated to the allottees of the Harita Housing Project through a letter and also made available on the official VUDA website. In the meanwhile, the allottee/petitioner requested a refund of the amount paid by him, by duly submitting an affidavit stating that he would not pursue any legal action against the Government or VUDA in relation to this matter, nor make any further claims arising out of the allotment. In view of the same, the authorities have refunded the total amount to the allottee vide cheque No.357812, dated 20.07.2013. Having accepted the refund, the petitioner did not have any right to seek the restoration of the allotment of the MIG-IA flat, Nagavalli Block-2 North facing block in Haritak Housing Project. Therefore, the writ petition is merit less and deserves dismissal. 5 Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner submitted an application for the allotment of MIG-IA Flat under the Harita Housing Scheme and deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with the application and accordingly, the 4 petitioner was provisionally allotted an MIG-IA flat Nagavali Block-2, North facing. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner subsequently requested a refund of the amount paid by him, and the authority refunded the total amount to the petitoner vide cheque No.357812, dated 20.07.2013. As rightly contended by the learned Standing counsel that having received the amount and submitted an affidavit stating that he would not institute any legal action against the Government or VUDA, nor make any claims arising out of the allotment, the petitioner has no right to seek the restoration of the said flat. There is some force in the contention of the learned Standing counsel in that regard. The petitioner did not raise any valid grounds warranting interference of this Court. As such, the writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 23.01.2025 ANS 5 291 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 10226/2014 Date: 23.01.2025 ANS