O.M. Debara vs Government Of A.P.

Telangana High Court

O.M. Debara vs Government Of A.P. on 3 January, 2024

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
    THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

               WRIT PETITION No.16736 OF 2010

ORDER:

(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

This writ petition is filed seeking to grant the

following relief:

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O's., G.O.Ms.No.509, Revenue (ASN.V) Department, dated 14.06.2010 and G.O.Ms.No.510, Revenue (ASN.V) Department, dated 14.06.2010, alienating an extent of Acs.55.00 in Sy.No.31, Neknampura Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Hyderabad District, and an extent of Ac.100.00 in Sy.Nos.923 to 926/p, 935, 946, 952 and 957 to 961/p, situated at Jawaharnagar Village, Shamirpet Mandal, R.R. District, respectively in favour of the 3rd respondent is arbitrary, illegal, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the orders passed by this Honble Court in W.P.No.13730 of 2006, dated 08.10.2007, W.P.No.7956 of 2008 & batch, dated 05.01.2010, and to set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 2

2. Heard Mr. Gandra Mohan Rao, learned Senior

Counsel representing Mr. Malla Reddy Gadipally, learned

counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Godugu Mallesham,

learned counsel representing Mr. T. Rajinikanth Reddy,

learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. A. Venkatesh,

learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Sheelam Ashok

Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. The brief facts of the case are:

The Government has issued two G.Os., i.e.,

G.O.Ms.No.509, Revenue (ASN.V) Department,

dated 14.06.2010, and G.O.Ms.No.510, Revenue (ASN.V)

Department, dated 14.06.2010, alienating an extent of

Acs.55.00 of land in Sy.No.31, Neknampura Village,

Rajendranagar Mandal, Hyderabad District, and an extent of

Acs.100.00 in Sy.Nos.923 to 926/p, 935, 946, 952 and 957 to

961/p, situated at Jawaharnagar Village, Shamirpet Mandal,

R.R. District, respectively, in favour of the Andhra Pradesh

Secretariat Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing

Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Society'), CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 3

Hyderabad. Another set of G.Os., i.e., G.O.Ms.Nos.242 to 243

and 244, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated

28.02.2005, were issued by the Government.

3.1 G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 28.02.2005, was issued to create

a land bank for allotment to the needy and deserving sections

of society. G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.02.2005, was issued

laying down the pre-conditions for allotment of land for

housing to various categories of persons. G.O.Ms.No.244,

dated 28.02.2005, was issued laying down the policy

guidelines for allotment of land for housing to six categories of

persons, who are Government servants.

3.2 In W.P.No.13730 of 2006, challenge was laid to declare

G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (ASN.V) Department, dated

04.05.2006, as illegal and arbitrary. A Division Bench by

order dated 08.10.2007 allowed the writ petition and quashed

G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 04.05.2006. The Division Bench held

that the orders in the said writ petition would not preclude the

Government from making allotment to societies or groups of

the identified categories in accordance with the policy CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 4

contained in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005. It was left open

to identify a category of persons to form a new society and get

the same registered or make applications as groups for the

purpose of allotment of land in terms of the policy contained in

G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005.

3.3 A batch of writ petitions came to be filed before the

Hon'ble Court in W.P.Nos.7956, 7997 and 23682 of 2008

seeking a direction to declare G.O.Ms.Nos.419 to 425, dated

25.03.2008, and G.O.Ms.No.551, dated 27.03.2008, as illegal,

arbitrary, without jurisdiction, void ab initio and violative of

Division Bench Orders in W.P.No.13730 of 2006. The Division

Bench by order dated 19.04.2008 passed interim order holding

that the directions issued by the Division Bench in

W.P.No.13730 of 2006 have not been faithfully carried out by

the Government and passed interim order by issuing certain

directions. Further the Division Bench by an order dated

05.01.2010 quashed all the G.Os. except G.O.Ms.No.421,

dated 25.03.2008. It held that if the respondents were to

make fresh allotments, they could do so by issuing fresh G.O. CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 5

by incorporating necessary condition rendering the persons,

who own a house or house site in their own name or in the

name of their spouse or children, ineligible for allotment by the

respective Societies. It was further held that the respondents

should call the details of the members, who satisfy the

eligibility criteria for allotment of house sites and the

respective Societies shall submit the applications of each of the

members personally signed by them along with their sworn

affidavits declaring that they do not own a house or house site

as stated supra and that these details should be kept in

web-site for information of general public.

3.4 The respondents in W.P.Nos.7956 of 2008 and batch

carried the matter in appeal to the Hon'ble Apex Court in

C.A.Nos.3791-3810 of 2011. The Supreme Court vide order

dated 14.05.2010 had directed that the order dated

19.04.2008 passed by the High Court shall continue to be in

operation. The Apex Court by order dated 02.05.2017 modified

the interim order dated 14.05.2010 granted earlier to the

extent that the allottees/societies, who were in possession of CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 6

the subject land, may develop the land at their own risk and

cost and they shall not claim any equities in their favour if

ultimately they fail in these appeals. The Civil Appeals are still

pending in the Hon'ble Apex Court.

3.5 Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner assailed validity of G.Os on following grounds:

1) The said G.Os., are contrary to the order of the Division Bench in W.P.No.13730 of 2006, dated 08.10.2007 and contrary to the judgment of the High Court in W.P.No.7956 of 2008 and batch, dated 05.01.2010.

2) The G.Os., have been issued and alienation of land has been made without referring to the statutory rules i.e., Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Land Revenue Rules, 1975 (for short, the Rules, 1975).

3) The alienation of the said land has been made without application of mind and within the limits of Outer Ring Road (ORR) by relaxing the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.02.2005, wherein allotment of land within ORR is prohibited.

4) The said G.Os., have been issued relaxing the conditions in G.O.Ms.No.243 dated 28.02.2005 without any justification.

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 7

5) Allotted land is valued at more than Rs. 550.00 crores and the said land has been parted for a meagre amount of Rs.2.07 crores which is against public interest causing loss to exchequer and also is in violation of Article 39 (a) and (b) of the Directive Principles of State Policy.

3.6 It is submitted that under G.O.Ms.No.242, dated

28.02.2005, the empowered committee alone is vested with the

power to decide allotment of land, apportionment and usage

and submit the said proposals to the Government.

In the present case, procedure prescribed in Government

Orders dated 28.02.2005 has not been followed. It is further

submitted that broad guidelines are prescribed in

G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.02.2005, such as methodology of

allotment, categorization of pricing, conditions of allotment

and size of plots/fats.

3.7 Our attention has been invited to G.O.Ms.No.244, dated

28.02.2005, and it is submitted that the criteria has been laid

down for allotment of land for housing to Government CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 8

employees by this G.O., such as conditions of allotment and

size of plots/flats.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

guidelines prescribed in G.O.Ms.Nos.242 to 244 have not been

followed and the directions issued by Division Bench of this

Court in W.P.No.17370 of 2006 have not been adhered to and

impugned G.Os., are violative of the directions issued by the

Division Bench and the guidelines in G.Os. 242 to 244 dtd.

28.02.2005.

4.1 It is submitted that as per Rule 10 of the Rules, 1975,

the Government, if desires to sell or otherwise alienate its

lands in Telangana Area, may do so by following a reasonable

procedure such as public auction. Relying upon Rule 10 of the

Rules 1975, it has been contended that the said alienation

should have been by way of public auction. It is further

submitted that if there is allotment or alienation of land, the

same has to be done by proper application of mind. The G.Os.

have been issued without taking into consideration the

guidelines prescribed as per G.O.Ms.Nos.242 to 244, dated CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 9

28.02.2005. That the said G.Os. have been issued by relaxing

guidelines which is against the policy and without

incorporating the conditions as directed by the Division Bench.

4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

discretion to be exercised by the Government in grant of

largesse is in regards to the persons to whom such largesse

may be granted, but, its action must be in conformity with a

standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or

irrelevant. Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will

like a private individual. It is further submitted that prime

land cannot be given away at a throw away price and it is

against the public policy and public interest. It is argued that

the Government has acted unreasonably in allotting the said

lands to the society. The valuable resources of the State

Government are being divested and the Government has fixed

the price without taking into consideration the land prices and

that land worth Rs.550.00 crores has been allotted for Rs.2.07

crores.

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 10

4.3 It is submitted that under Part IV, Directive Principles of

State Policy, Article 39 of the Constitution of India imposes an

obligation on the State to direct its policy by distributing

material resources of the community to sub-serve the common

good and the distribution should be done in a fair and

equitable manner and therefore, the allotment of the land is

contrary to Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is argued

that that the State in an act of largesse cannot act at its

pleasure and has to satisfy the test of reasonableness and

public interest and actions of the State should be in

consonance with principles of equality and public trust and

ensure that no action of it is detrimental to public interest,

that the land could have been sold by public auction. It is

further argued that the allotment is contrary to the law laid

and in contravention of G.O.Ms.Nos.242 to 244. Hence, the

G.Os. under challenge are liable to be quashed. In support of

the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners

has placed reliance on the following decisions:-

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 11

1. M/s. Kasturi Lal Laxmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (AIR 1980 1992) (paragraphs 11 to 16)

2. Ram and Sam Company vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1985 SC 1147) (paragraph no.12)

3. Shri Sachidanand Pande vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1987 SC 1109) (paragraph nos.33 to 39)

4. M.I. Builders (P) Limited vs. R.S. Sahoo (1999 (6) SCC 464) (paragraphs 31, 32, 57, 58, 59, 69 to

72)

5. Akhil Bhrtiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. and others (2011 (5) SCC 29) (paragraphs 48 to 68)

6. Humanity and another vs. State of West Bengal and Others (2011 (6) SCC 125) (paragraphs 23 to

33)

7. City Industrial Development Corporation vs. Platinum Entertainment and Others (2015 (1) SCC 558) (paragraphs 36 to 43, 50)

8. Institute of Law, Chandigarh and Others vs. Neeraj Sharma and others (2015 (1) SCC 720) (paragraphs 25 to 27)

9. Public Interest Litigation No.383 of 2012, dated 25.07.2014 CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 12

10. Road Metal Industry v. Secretary to Government of A.P., Revenue Department and others (2001 (6) ALD 166)

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent No.3-Society submitted that certain events

which are relevant and necessary for proper appreciation of

the issue on hand need to be highlighted. That such

appreciation necessarily involves consideration of

developments that took place prior to the issuance of the

G.Os., under challenge.

5.1 Learned counsel for respondent No.3 highlighted the

following events which took place prior to the issuance of

G.O.Ms.Nos.242 to 244, dated 28.02.2005.

i) G.O.Ms.No.803, dated 26.10.2002, was issued

allotting land admeasuring Acs.59.14 guntas in Survey No.31

of Neknampura Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Hyderabad,

was allotted in favour of the Secretariat Employees for house

sites.

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 13

ii) Memo No.79955/ASSN.V(2)/2002, dated

11.02.2003, was issued to hand over advance possession of

land to the Secretariat Employees for house sites.

iii) By letter No.LCI/1682/2001, dated 08.03.2003,

Collector, Ranga Reddy District instructed to hand over

advance possession of land to the Society.

iv) That vide letter No.5542/MP.2/Plg/HUDA/04, dated

12.10.2004, Group Housing Scheme layout permission was

accorded in L.P.No.55/NP-2/11/2004, dated 12.10.2004,

subject to certain conditions.

v) Government of Andhra Pradesh instructed

Collector, Ranga Reddy, to resume land to an extent of

Acs.100.00 situated at Jawaharnagar Village, Shamirpet

Mandal, Ranga Reddy, from out of Acs.2000.00 handed over

the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (hereinafter

referred to as HUDA) vide Memo No.79955/ASSN.V(2)/2002-

06, dated 09.11.2004.

vi) Land admeasuring Acs.59.14 guntas in Survey

No.31 of Neknampur Village was handed over by the revenue

authorities to the President Shri M. Narender Rao of the CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 14

Society vide Panchanama, dated 20.03.2003 and an extent of

Acs.100.00 of land in Survey Nos. 923 to 926/p, 935, 946, 952

and 957 to 961/p, of Jawaharnagar Village, Shamirpet Mandal,

was handed over to the President of the Society on 19.07.2005

by conducting panchanama.

vii) Respondent No.3/Society was intimated about the

development charges, processing charges, other miscellaneous

charges, demarcation of plots, fencing, mortgage plots and

submission of Encumbrance Certificate vide letter

No.1749/MP.2/Plg.H/2007, dated 25.03.2008.

viii) Proceedings were issued on 30.12.2008 by the

Director (Commercial), APCPDCL and communicated to the

President of the Society informing about the sanction of

electricity connection.

5.2 Learned counsel submitted that 850 eligible members

were allotted plots in respect of Neknampur and 1600

members were allotted plots in respect of Jawaharnagar site.

A number of houses were constructed and the Society has

incurred an expenditure of Rs.6.77 crores for development of CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 15

essential amenities in respect of Neknampur site and Rs.9.00

crores for the same purpose in respect of Jawaharnagar site.

That the members of the Society were all employees of the

Secretariat working in various cadres including Clerks of all

Grades, Typists, Drivers, Record Assistants, Attenders,

Watchmen, Sweepers and Scavengers etc. It is submitted that

the events highlighted were prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.

242 to 244 and the guidelines prescribed therein cannot be

made applicable.

6. Our attention has been invited to the Division Bench

judgment rendered in W.P.No.13730 of 2006 and contended

that the question which fell for consideration was, whether the

policy of the Government to provide shelter to the needy people

can be stretched for allotting land to the haves of the Society in

their individual capacity in relaxation of the policy guidelines

contained in G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, dated 28.02.2005,

that whether such policy can be extended to the individual

capacity of IAS Officers. Hence, the contention of learned

counsel for the petitioners is misconceived.

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 16

7. Referring to a portion of the order of the Division Bench

order at page No.7, it is contended that the Government of

Andhra Pradesh did not have any fixed policy or mechanism till the

issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, to meet the requirement

of other deserving sections of the society for alienation of land to

such sections.

7.1 It is submitted that the G.O.Ms.Nos.242 to 244 came

into being in the year 2005, by which, guidelines were

issued and that the allotment of the said lands/sites in

favour of respondent no.3-Society were much prior to 2005.

That the Division Bench quashed allotment of land to

individuals who are not members of the society/groups and

who may have received the benefit of concessional

allotment from the Government earlier or as member of any

society or group to which concessional allotment was made.

That the Division Bench had made it clear that the

Government was free to allot land to the societies/groups of

identified categories in accordance with the policy

contained in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.02.2005. Learned

counsel submitted that the allotment is neither contrary to CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 17

the judgment in W.P.No.13730 of 2006 nor to the policy

and that the contentions of learned counsel for the

petitioners are untenable and do not deserve consideration.

8. Our attention has been invited to the judgment of

Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7956 of 2008 and

batch, dated 05.01.2010. It is submitted that the division

bench in these matters considered the alienation of lands

situated within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

(hereinafter referred to as GHMC) to various societies

comprising as their members, persons who are members of

both the Houses of A.P. State Legislature, members of both the

Houses of Parliament from A.P., Officers of All India Services

i.e., IAS, IPS and IRS, who are the non-natives and working in

the State of Andhra Pradesh and those belonging to other

States Cadre with A.P. nativity working/worked on deputation

in the State of A.P., Journalists and the High Court Judges of

A.P. and that the contentions of petitioners counsel that the

division bench orders have been ignored is totally baseless as

the issue which fell for consideration different.

CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 18

8.1 It is submitted that persons/individuals who have

already received benefits either individually or as Members of a

Society and persons who own properties either in their names

or in the name of their spouse or their children were made

ineligible. It is submitted that the Division Bench in

W.P.No.7956 of 2008 and batch held that G.Os. that did not

make those persons ineligible as stated supra cannot be

sustained in law. Hence, they were bound to be quashed to

that extent. It is submitted that the Division Bench suggested

the incorporation of necessary condition that the

persons/individuals who own a house or house site in their

own names or in the name of their spouse or their children

should be made ineligible for allotment of land/site by the

respective societies and certain other criteria was suggested. It

is submitted that the Government in its wisdom allotted land

in favour of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat employees for house

sites.

9. Learned Special Government Pleader representing the

respondent-State contended that the alienation/allotment of CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 19

land is contrary to the judgments rendered by the Division

Bench in W.P.No.13730 of 2006 and W.P.No.7956 of 2008 and

batch. The conditions enumerated in G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243

and 244, dated 28.02.2005, have to be followed if allotments

are to be made. Our attention has been invited to the

conditions of allotment in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.02.2005,

to buttress the contention that the guidelines of the

Government Order are in consonance with the directions of the

orders of the Division Bench.

10. In reply to submissions made by learned counsel for the

respondent No.3-Society, counsel for petitioners contended

that an employee who does not have a house in Hyderabad or

Ranga Reddy is eligible for a house site, but whereas it should

be construed as anywhere in Andhra Pradesh as per the

judgment of the Division Bench. That Clause 41 read with

Clause 3 (for obtaining and retaining membership) of byelaws

of society lays down the criteria of eligibility and ineligibility.

11. Our attention is invited to paragraph no.3 of the counter

affidavit filed by the respondent No.3-society that except IAS CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 20

Officers, all other employees working in the Secretariat and the

Andhra Pradesh Assembly are members of the society. It is

submitted that the subject matter in W.P.No.7956 of 2008 and

batch is with regard to alienation of lands situated within

GHMC limits to various societies and the said allotment is

within GHMC limits. That the Division Bench suggested to

incorporate that if any member of the society gives a false

declaration in the affidavit, wherein declaration has been

sought for allotment of a house site, such policy declaration

would make the employee liable for cancellation from the

membership and would be liable for civil and criminal

consequences. That such a condition has not been

incorporated in spite of the directions of the Division Bench.

It is submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.416, in Municipal

Corporation(s), Government may alienate lands preferably for

constructions of flats, but, however, if employees desire land

for individual plots can be allotted. It is strenuously

contended that the Government has allotted/alienated the

land by ignoring the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.Nos.242 to

244. That the directions issued by the Division Bench have CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 21

not been incorporated and the issuance of the G.Os. are

contrary to guidelines.

12. Heard learned counsels, perused the entire record,

Government Orders issued on different dates.

13. Allotment of one of the parcels of land is vide

G.O.Ms.No.803, dated 26.10.2002, possession was delivered

and panchanamas were conducted much prior to issuance of

G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, dated 28.02.2005. On a

perusal of G.O.Ms.No.803, it is clear that the Government

issued orders allotting the land in favour of employees, who

formed the 3rd respondent-Society and this fact is borne by

record. That by letter dated 06.01.2005, the second parcel of

land admeasuring Acs.100.00 was resumed on the

instructions of Collector, Ranga Reddy, to Mandal Revenue

Officer, Shamirpet Mandal from HUDA and the same was

handed over to the 3rd respondent-society. It is a fact borne on

record that both these parcels of land were allotted/alienated

prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.242 to 244, which were

issued subsequently on 28.02.2005, where policy guidelines CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 22

are prescribed. It is a fact that guidelines are issued

subsequent to the allotment. The fact that the Division Bench

in its order has recorded a finding that the Government of

Andhra Pradesh did not have any fixed policy or mechanism

till the issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, to meet the

requirement of other deserving sections of the society for

alienation of land to such sections is ample proof that the

policy guidelines framed are subsequent and the contentions

raised by the petitioners are based on sandy foundations. The

directions to incorporate condition(s) that persons/employees

who own a house or house site in their name or in the name of

their spouse or their children should be made ineligible is

already embedded in the byelaws of society and we have

perused it. The Division Bench has not precluded the

Government from making allotment to Societies is also taken

note of.

14. We do not find any hesitation in holding that

G.O.Ms.Nos.509 and 510, dated 14.06.2010, are only a

reiteration of the allotment of the parcels of the land, made CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 23

much prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244. We

do not find any infirmity in the G.Os., under challenge in this

Public Interest Litigation. For the aforesaid reasons, the

challenge to the impugned G.Os., on the ground that the same

are violative of the guidelines and contrary to the orders of the

Division Bench is misconceived.

15. It is trite law that the doctrine of delay and laches applies

to the public interest litigation as well. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company

Limited v. Bombay Environmental Action Group 1, in

paragraph 341 has held as under:

"341. Delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioners indisputably have a role to play in the matter of grant of reliefs in a writ petition. This Court in a large number of decisions has categorically laid down that where by reason of delay and/or laches on the part of the writ petitioners the parties altered their positions and/or third- party interests have been created, public interest litigations may be summarily dismissed. Delay although may not be the sole ground for dismissing a public interest litigation in some cases and, thus, each case must be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining therein, the underlying equitable principles cannot be CJ & JAK, J W.P.No.16736 OF 2010 24

ignored. As regards applicability of the said principles, public interest litigations are no exceptions. We have heretobefore noticed the scope and object of public interest litigation. Delay of such a nature in some cases is considered to be of vital importance. (See Chairman & MD, BPL Ltd. v. S.P. Gururaja [(2003) 8 SCC 567]."

16. In the instant case, the allotments have been made in the

year 2002 whereas the public interest litigation has been filed

challenging the allotment in the year 2010. Thus, the

challenge to the order of allotment suffers from delay and

laches. The delay and laches in filing the petition has not been

explained by the petitioners. Therefore, the petition suffers

from delay and laches and the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief in this petition on this ground that the writ petition

suffers from delay and laches. For yet another reason, no

interference is called for as the Society has made allotment of

plots in favour of its members and many members of the

Society have raised constructions on the plots allotted to them.