N. Ramesh Babu, vs The Telangana State Housing ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2637 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                 AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



            WRIT APPEAL No.1356 of 2018

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 13.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.19874 of 2007.

     The undisputed facts of the case reveal that a

notification was issued by the Andhra Pradesh Housing

Board in respect of sale of Plot No.1/HIG admeasuring

266.66 square yards situated at Balajinagar, Balanagar

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the auction was

conducted on 27.04.2004. The appellant (writ petitioner)

was the highest bidder. The bid was knocked in his favour

at Rs.11,800/- per square yard and as per the terms and

conditions of the auction, he was required to deposit 25%

of the bid amount and 1% auction expenses within twenty

four hours and the balance 75% of the bid amount to be

paid within three months from the date of confirmation of

auction by the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner.
                                 2




The conditions also reflected that for payment of the

balance amount beyond the period of three months, simple

interest at 10% would be charged and in case of failure to

remit the balance amount within three months along with

10% interest, the allotment would automatically stand

cancelled   forfeiting   the   amount   paid   earlier.   The

undisputed facts further reveal that the auction was

confirmed in favour of the appellant on 27.04.2004 and he

was informed by the respondents vide letter dated

23.07.2004 to pay the balance amount through a Demand

Draft within a period of three months from the date of

confirmation by the Housing Board on 09.07.2004. The

balance amount was Rs.23,60,641/-. The amount was not

deposited in time and therefore, a notice was issued on

28.10.2004 asking the appellant to deposit the amount and

it was also categorically mentioned that in case the amount

is not deposited within the stipulated time, the plot will be

re-auctioned. The appellant instead of depositing the

amount, again requested vide letter dated 10.11.2004 for

grant of extension of time and the Housing Board extended

the time up to 08.01.2005. In spite of extension of time

and in spite of the fact that it was categorically mentioned

by the authorities that auction would be cancelled and re-

auction would be conducted, the amount was not

deposited, even though he was permitted to deposit the

amount by 15.02.2005. The auction was cancelled and

thereafter, the appellant requested vide letter dated

12.12.2005 to accept the amount of Rs.23,60,641/- and

enclosed the cheque. However, the request was not

accepted and he was informed on 23.12.2005 that he has

failed to deposit the amount within the extended time and

in those circumstances, the bid has come to an end. The

appellant kept on representing in the matter and finally

auction notice was issued on 17.08.2007 and the

appellant, after the auction notice was issued afresh, came

up before this Court. The learned Single Judge has

dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellant

did not deposit the amount as per the terms and

conditions of the notification, even after grant of extension

of time and the Housing Board was justified, on account of

cancellation of the allotment, to issue a fresh notification.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the order

passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any

interference. The appellant has certainly not complied with

the terms and conditions of the auction notification and he

did not deposit the remaining balance amount of 75%

within time and also did not deposit the same even after

repeated extensions given by the Housing Board and in

those circumstances, a fresh notification was issued. At

this juncture also, the plot cannot be given to the appellant

as the plot was auctioned in the year 2004 and the land

value has gone a sea change.

Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

Housing Board has certainly adopted a transparent

procedure by issuing a fresh notification and in case the

plot has not been sold so far, the appellant shall certainly

be free to submit his offer also as and when fresh

notification is issued by the Housing Board. This Court

does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed

by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

13.06.2022 vs