APHC010259752014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5016/2014 Between: Sri K.v. Krishna Rao S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALASWAMI 2. R SUDHEER(S C) 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV WRIT PETITION NO: 31595/2014 Between: Sri K.v. Krishna Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALASWAMI 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. R SUDHEER(S C) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.5016 & 31595 of 2014 COMMON ORDER: 1. Writ Petition No.5016 of 2014 is filed to declare the action of Respondent No.2 in not registering the site admeasuring 164 Sq. Yards at Raghuram Veedhi, Mugalarajapuram, Vijayawada in favour of petitioner as illegal arbitrary. 2. Writ Petition No.31595 of 2014 was filed questioning the proceedings Memo No.13160/M2/2014 dated 04.10.2014 issued by Respondent No.1 in not ratifying the sale to the extent of petitioners’ site admeasuring 164 Sq. Yards in Raghuram Veedhi, Mugalarajapuram, Vijayawada, as illegal, arbitrary. 3. The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are as follows: Respondent No.2 had issued a tender-cum-auction notice for vacant un- useful sites belonging to Respondent No.2-Corporation on 23.10.2004. The petitioner had participated in the auction with regard to the site of an extent of 164 Sq. yards forming path on L.P.No.177/78, Raghuram Veedhi, Mughalarajapuram, by paying two D.D.s for an amount of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,98,440/-. The petitioner was declared as a highest bidder and offered an amount of Rs.8,43,760/- and on 18.11.2004, proceedings were issued by Respondent No.2 calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,45,320/- within 7 days. The petitioner paid the balance amount by demand draft on State Bank of Hyderabad on 24.11.2004. Thereafter, office of Respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that the sale agreement papers for registration in his favour be sent and possession be given to him very shortly. 4. It was further pleaded that the auction was conducted pursuant to Municipal Resolution No.81 dated 10.08.2004 for auctioning the vacant un- useful sites. Though the petitioner had paid the amount within 7 days from the date of auction, the sale deed was not executed in his favour in spite of passage of time. Hence, W.P.No.5016 of 2014 was filed for the above mentioned relief. 5. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 passed impugned proceedings dated 04.10.2014 refusing to ratify the land on the ground that the land could not be allotted as the same has been maintained as layout open space and the same is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.72 M.A., dated 22.02.2002. Hence, W.P.No.31395 of 2014 was filed. 6. In the counter filed by Respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions, it was stated that the subject land cannot be allotted to the petitioner as the same has to be maintained as layout open space and that the proposed allotment is against the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.72 MA dated 22.02.2002. In the counter filed by Respondent No.2, it was stated that the Government is the only competent authority for granting permission to transfer of property under Section 148(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and as the Government and Respondent No.2 cannot execute the registration unless Respondent No.1 gives a sanction. It was further stated that the petitioner is in possession of the property. Apart from the above stand, there are no factual disputes regarding the Municipal Corporation Resolution Auction and the payment of the amount by the petitioner. 7. Heard Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for the Respondents. 8. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the open plot in a lay-out could be auctioned. The Respondent No.1 had issued G.O.Ms.No.419 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (J1) Department dated 10.08.1996, where under open lands in the layout which were to be used for parks, playgrounds and other specific purposes mentioned therein, such lands shall be used for remunerative purposes like shopping/office/complexes. There are lands not required by the Municipality for the above mentioned purposes, the same can be put to public auction through tender-cum-auction procedure so that the Municipalities can derive income. 9. Subsequently, the G.O.Ms.No.419 was superseded by G.O.Ms.No.72 M.A., dated 20.02.2002. As per the said G.O., the open space in layouts shall not be used for any other purpose pursuant to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust vs. B.S.Mudappa and Others1. 1 1991 AIR 1902 10. The G.O.Ms.No.72 M.A., dated 20.02.2002 is not under challenge in these writ petitions. Admittedly, the subject land is a open land and part of layout No.177/78 and even by the date of auction i.e., 03.11.2004, G.O.Ms.No.72 was in vogue and the same was not taken note of by Respondent No.2 before proceeding with the auction. The Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical Trust Vs B.S.Mudappa and Others is being consistently followed. In a similar fact scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramani v. T.N. Slum-Clearance Board2 had observed at paragraph 14 as follows: “14. At the outset it is required to be noted that as such the plot in question was originally reserved/earmarked for “public convenience” pursuant to the approved layout under the scheme sanctioned by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. The plot in question was therefore required to be used for “public utility” only.” 11. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the refusal to register sale deed in favour of the petitioner. However, as the petitioner had paid the entire amount under a bonafide belief that the sale deed would be executed in his favour way back in the year 2004 and as the auction was conducted at the instance of Respondent No.2, it would be appropriate to direct Respondent No.2 to refund the amount paid by the petitioner with an interest @ 18% per annum within a period of two (02) months from today. 2 (2022) 16 SCC 395 12. With the above observation, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Dated: 21.04.2025 RKS