APHC010404382023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 129 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:-15 [3483] Mannam Sudheer Kumar ...Petitioner Vs. The State of AP and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: Party-in-Person Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. C. V. R. Rudra Prasad, ld. Amicus Curie, GP for Revenue, GP for Muncipal Admn Urban Dev CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 15th October, 2025. Per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ: Brief facts: The Ongole Municipal Corporation issued an auction notice dated 22.10.2007 for the sale of plots under the Integrated Development of Small and Medium Towns (IDSMT) scheme in Ongole District. A total of 132 plots were sought to be auctioned, including 105 plots in the EWS category, 26 plots in the LIG category and 1 commercial plot. The auction was conducted between 22.10.2007 and 24.10.2007. 2. The final allotment and transfer of plots, it is stated, were kept in abeyance by virtue of interim orders passed in Writ Petition Nos. 21996 of 2 HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_129_2023 2007 and 22278 of 2007. It was only after the writ petitions were dismissed that the allotment of plots was resumed from September 2012, as per the stand of respondent Nos.9 and 10. 3. Out of 132 plots, bidders of 124 plots paid their full amount whereas bidders for 6 EWS plots, i.e., plots bearing Nos.122, 123, 124, 168, 177, and 137) paid an initial deposit of Rs.27,000/- and later paid one-fourth of the bid amount as per the auction conditions. Since the remaining amount was not paid within the stipulated time, the Ongole Municipal Corporation cancelled the allotment through office proceedings dated 21.06.2014. 4. According to the official stand, a Communication dated 19.09.2008 was addressed to the Commissioner, Ongole Municipal Corporation, by respondent No. 8, followed by a subsequent communication dated 01.07.2014, wherein it was represented that after physical verification of the size of the plot on spot, the measurements did not coincide with those mentioned in the auction notice or the layout. It was further stated that he was ready to pay the balance amount if the land was handed over as per the specifications given in the layout. 5. It is the case of respondent No.8 that it was declared as highest bidder at Rs.3.16 crores for the plot measuring 85 x 343 feet. For this, a sum of Rupees Thirteen Lakhs was paid towards the Earnest Money Deposit at the time of the open auction, and one-fourth of the bid i.e., Rupees Seventy Nine Lakhs was paid towards the first installment on 02.11.2007. The request of 3 HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_129_2023 respondent No.8 was got examined and a report of the Town Surveyor obtained, which reflected that as against 29,155 square feet mentioned in the layout, the area available on the spot was 25,749 square feet. A report in this regard is stated to have been sent to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration on 17.10.2014, seeking suitable instructions. 6. In the year 2021, respondent No. 8 was stated to have once again made a request to the official respondents, expressing willingness to pay the second, third, and fourth installments immediately if the land was handed over as per the specifications in the layout. The representation was forwarded to the Commissioner and the Director of Municipal Administration to examine the matter as a whole and furnish a report in that regard. 7. It appears that the Government instructed the Commissioner and the Director of Municipal Administration to examine the representations of the defaulters in the EWS category. The official stand is that the Government examined the request of respondent No.8, represented through its partner and ordered reduction of the proportionate amount on the actual measurement on the ground in respect of the commercial plot which was earlier allotted to it in the bidding process and to calculate the balance amount accordingly. 8. Apart from this, the Government is also stated to have accorded permission to the highest bidders in regard to 6 EWS plots in the same layout, on humanitarian grounds, by paying the balance amount with simple rate of interest from the date on which the amount was due. Insofar as the defaulters 4 HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_129_2023 in the EWS category are concerned, the stand taken is that in regard to those successful bidders, who had defaulted in payment of the balance amount, the intention of the scheme was not to optimize revenue through auction, and reallotment of plots was done on humanitarian grounds. 9. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant petition is that the plots, having been cancelled, ought to have been put to auction, inasmuch as the parties had defaulted in making the payment on time. 10. It is stated that the auction was conducted in the year 2007, whereas the reallotment of plots was done much later. In the meantime, prices had increased significantly, and therefore, the decision to reallot the plots resulted in loss to the exchequer. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 12. We are of the view that the decision to reallot plots to the defaulters, whose allotments were earlier cancelled, appears to have some basis and cannot be said to be perverse, especially in the case of allottees in the EWS category. The stand of the official respondents is that optimizing revenue was never their intention and the objective was to rehabilitate persons belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections of society. Interest was also directed to be charged from such allottees who had defaulted. Further, coupled with the fact that there appears to be an interim order passed in Writ Petition Nos.21996 and 22278 of 2007 may have also been a cause for the respondents not to 5 HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_129_2023 pay the balance amount, which interim orders were vacated upon dismissal of the petitions in the year 2010. 13. The same is the case with respondent No.8, who was declared as the successful bidder in regard to a commercial plot. Although the highest bid submitted by him was for an extent of 29,155 square feet, there was a shortfall of approximately 14% in the actual land available on the spot. Upon consideration, the Government decided to reduce the bid price proportionately. 14. In our opinion, there was some justification for the Corporation and the Government in not subjecting these plots to re-auction. However, one thing which strikes us in the entire case is that, while the six allottees belonging to the EWS category were directed to pay interest on the outstanding amount, no such interest was charged from respondent No.8, even though the plot in question was commercial in nature. 15. While the official respondents may have been justified in charging simple interest from EWS category allottees, not charging any interest from respondent No.8, in our opinion, is not justified. 16. We, therefore, close the present proceedings insofar as the allottees in the EWS category are concerned and direct the official respondents to consider the issue of charging interest from respondent No. 8, keeping in view whether it should be simple or otherwise, especially since the plot in question is commercial in nature. The interest shall be applied for the same period for 6 HCJ & RCJ WP(PIL)_129_2023 which interest was made chargeable to the EWS category allottees. A decision in this regard shall be taken preferably within four months from today. 17. The present Writ Petition (PIL) is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN