APHC010986902017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 40568/2017 Between: 1. BUSI VENKATA RAO, S/O LATE APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O D.NO.58-13-59, SRI KRISHNA NILAYAM, GOURINAGAR, NAD POST, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SECRETARY, VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.MIG-C-6/SNTM/F1 dt.13.6.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent refused to allot the remaining extent of 155.56 sq.yards along with 222 sq.yards which is actual size of the plot measuring 377.78 sq.yards shown in the registration sketch in respect of 2 Plot No.MIG-C-6 to the writ petitioner at the same auctioned rate of Rs.3,700/- as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the review conditions framed in Subject No.74 of Rc.No.6379/06/F2 issued by the Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 50366 OF 2017 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 to direct the respondents herein to allot the remaining extent of 155.56 sq.yards shown in the registration sketch in respect of Plot No.MIG-C-6 to the writ petitioner at the same auctioned rate of Rs.3,700/- pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to grant Leave to the Respondents No.2 & 3 to file the Counter Affidavit in W.P.No.40568 of 2017 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. SOMISETTY GANESH BABU SC For VUDA and MUDA 3. 0 The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in refusing to allot an adjacent odd-bit plot admeasuring 155.56 square yards of land. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was the successful bidder in the auction conducted by the 2nd respondent and purchased Plot No. MIG-C-6 in Sontyam Layout in the auction held on 29.06.2014. It is also submitted that the petitioner sought allotment of the odd bit adjoining Plot No. MIG-C-6 to the petitioner at the same auction rate. The respondent authorities, vide order dated 13.06.2017, rejected the petitioner’s proposal, duly intimating that the 2nd respondent authority had decided to conduct an auction for the adjoining odd bit. 3. It is further submitted that an adjacent plot owner, who was the successful bidder for MIG-B-147, had initially bid for plot admeasuring 260.66 square yards. The 2nd respondent had included an odd bit adjoining Plot No. MIG-B-147 and allotted an extent of 526.67 square yards. The additional extent of the land was allotted at the auction price as on 14.07.2014. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent has been exhibiting different yardsticks for different applicants and that the petitioner’s case is on the same lines as was the case of one K. Narayana Rao, for whom the 2nd respondent allotted the adjoining odd bit of land. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the other purchaser, as the said odd bit was allotted to the purchaser of Plot No. MIG-B-147 on the ground that the odd 4 bit adjoining the said plot was not feasible for auctioning or allotment to any other third party. It is also submitted that odd bits admeasuring more than 100 square yards would be put to auction, and that the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot claim allotment of the odd bit adjoining his plot. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities would shortly be issuing a notification for conducting an auction of the odd bits in the layout, and that it is left open for the petitioner to participate in the fresh auction to be conducted shortly. 5. Recording the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, the manner in which the 2nd respondent intends to deal with the odd bits in the layout would be at the sole discretion of the 2nd respondent, and it is also open for the petitioner to participate in the proposed auction for the odd bits. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the process set up by the 2nd respondent for conducting the auction of the odd bits in the layout. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 06.08.2025 PNS