Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.
1. This writ petition has been instituted calling in question the orders passed by the 2nd respondent - A.P. Housing Board requiring the writ petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 9,10,299/- for purposes of selling land admeasuring 49.33 Sq. yards situated at M.J. Road, at Hyderabad, in favour of the writ petitioner.
2. The facts to the extent relevant are that the writ petitioner has occupied a vacant strip of land admeasuring 49.33 sq. yards belonging to the Housing Board. It was adjoining to Block No. 7, Pay and Accounts Office, situated at M.J. Road, Hyderabad. The writ petitioner has been in occupation of this strip of land for a very long time now. He has earlier, in the company of Sri T. Prabhu Singh instituted WP No. 21801 of 1994 in this court seeking a writ of mandamus not to dispossess them from the land in question. That writ petition came to be disposed of on 23.3.1995 with a direction to the A.P. Housing Board to issue notice to the petitioners fixing up the price of the land in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 20, dated 11.6.1984 and to convey the land within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said order. Pending such a decision, the petitioners are ordered not be evicted from the land in question. Aggrieved by the said order, the A.P. Housing Board carried the matter in appeal by instituting W.A. No. 849 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 13.10.1995 did not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly dismissed it. Thus, it has become necessary for the Housing Board to determine the value of the land under occupation of the writ petitioner so as to convey the said land in favour of the writ petitioner upon receipt of the price so fixed. In this context, it will also be relevant to notice that the State Government has passed orders through their G.O.Ms. No. 20, Housing, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 11.6.1984 framing certain policy guidelines to be adopted and followed by the A.P. Housing Board. The State Government has taken an overall view of the policy decisions on the subject of disposal of lands belonging to the Housing Board on payment of market value. The State Government earlier, through their G.O.Ms. No. 67, Housing, dated 28.5.1977 directed the Housing Board to follow the procedure of fixing the market value as determined by the Registration Department while disposing of sites which are measuring 250 sq. yards and less than that. The Housing Board solicited guidelines/instructions from the State Government as to the measures to be taken for disposal of stray pieces of land which are less than 100 Sq. yards in size, other than footpaths and road margins, to be sold to the adjacent house owners on current market value basis. The Housing Board has also solicited directions from the State Government as to the measures to be adopted by the Housing Board for regularizing non-objectionable encroachments found on Housing Board lands by collecting the market value plus encroachment fee from the date of such encroachment. Considering all these aspects, the State Government formulated its policy decision and announced the same in their G.O.Ms No. 20, dated 11.6.1984 referred to supra. The State Government permitted the A.P. Housing Board to sell stray pieces of land measuring less than 100 Sq. yards each other than footpaths and road margins to the adjacent house owners on current market value basis subject to the condition that no objection is obtained from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The State Government has also pointed out that the regularization of the non objectionable encroachments of Housing Board lands which are less than 100 Sq. yards may be resorted to after collecting the present market value plus encroachment fee from the date of such encroachment. It is this policy decision of the State Government, which is what this Court directed the Housing Board to take into reckoning for purposes of determining the land value of the stray piece of 49.33 sq. yards occupied and encroached upon by the writ petitioner, while disposing of WP No. 21809 of 1994.
3. In the purported implementation of the said decision, the A.P. Housing Board has determined the land value at the rate of Rs. 15,400/- per sq. yard and thus arrived at a total value of Rs. 7,59,682/-. It had also proposed to collect charges towards preparation of the registration plans and conveyance charges of Rs. 150/- and Rs. 50/-respectively. The encroachment fee at the rate of Rs. 6267.37 ps per month is sought to be collected for the period from December, 1994 till November, 1996, when the impugned order has come to be passed. This exercise of the Housing Board is what is challenged in the writ petition.
Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Rajeev Reddy, learned Counsel for the Housing Board.
4. A pt Sri Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the exercise of determining the land value as was ordered by this Court in WP No. 21801 of 1994 has not been properly carried out by the Housing Board. Learned Counsel places reliance upon a communication furnished by the Registration Department of the State Government on 20.11.1996 indicating the land value to be Rs. 5000/- per sq. yard with effect from 1.8.1996 in the locality in which the land in question belonging to the Housing Board is situated. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel determination of the land value at the rate of Rs. 15,400/- per sq. yard by the Housing Board is totally arbitrary and the land value has been purposefully inflated to cause hardship and damage to the writ petitioner. Nextly, the learned Counsel would submit that seeking an encroachment fee at the rate of Rs. 6267.37 ps per month is totally unjust and it is irrational. A stray piece of land of 49.33 sq. yards size, which is adjoining a naala which carries the drain waters would never have fetched a rental value of Rs. 6267/- at all. Therefore, on both these counts, the decision of the Housing Board has been faulted by the learned Counsel. Further, selectively certain other sites of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board have been sold in favour of influential people for a far less price.
5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Housing Board submits that certain guidelines have been issued by the State Government for purposes of fixing the land value through a Circular dated 9.9.1993 and in strict compliance thereof the land value has been worked out by the respondent - Housing Board and thus arrived at the rate of Rs. 15,400/-. The learned Counsel would submit that the basic value of the land as per the register maintained by the Sub-Registrar of the locality discloses the value to be Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard. Since the land has got several favourable aspects and features, for each favourable aspect certain percentage of value over and above the basic value has been added and thus it was found that cumulatively 54% of additional value has come to be added for all the various favourable features of this site and thus after a diligent exercise only, the value of the land has been arrived at Rs. 15,400/- which comprises Rs. 10,000/- per sq yard being the basic value and Rs. 5,400/- representing 54% of the additional value for the favourable features of the site in question. Learned Counsel for the Housing Board would further urge that the decision of the Housing Board in this regard is not justiciable and that it is always open to the petitioner not to accept the same and leave the site in question if he is not agreeable to buy the same at the rate offered by the Housing Board. The learned Counsel would further justify imposition of the encroachment fee from December, 1994 till November, 1996, on the ground that till the determination is done by the Housing Board, the writ petitioner has got to be treated and construed as an encroacher only. Learned Counsel has also placed strong reliance upon the following judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Duncan Industries Ltd. v. Union of India : AIR2006SC3699 and Pallavi Refractories v. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. : AIR2005SC744 and contends that there is nothing arbitrary about the decision of the Housing Board in the matter.
6. Sri Rajeev Reddy, the learned Counsel tried to explain away the two GOs upon which the writ petitioner placed reliance upon by way of additional material by pointing out that in both those cases the land belonging to the Housing Board has been leased out in favour of the individuals and ultimately those stray pieces of lands which are beyond 250 sq. yards have been sold for a valuable consideration as fixed by the State Government taking into account the additional factors existing in favour of those lessees. There being an essential distinction in between a lessee and a rank encroacher, no comparison can be drawn to those cases. It is further pointed out that the land in question is having commercial potential according to the learned Counsel for the Housing Board, as it is situate on the road to exhibition grounds and hence the value as fixed by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board cannot be faulted.
7. I have given my anxious considerate for the rival submissions. There is no dispute that the land occupied by the writ petitioner is the one owned by the A.P. Housing Board. It is a site approximately having 12 ft of road frontage and having a depth of 36 1/2 ft. It is further not in dispute that it abuts a naala, which carries the drain waters, and on the other side it abuts the Government Pay and Accounts Office. It is also further not in dispute that the said road leads to the Exhibition grounds where the Industrial Exhibition is undertaken on annual basis. It is further not in dispute that the land is a stray piece which could not be put to any effective use by the Housing Board. The policy of the State is very clear. In that it authorizes and permits sale of such stray pieces of land which are less than 100 sq. yards either in favour of any of the adjoining owners or in favour of the encroachers so long as sale of such stray pieces of land is not found otherwise objectionable. The State Government has clearly laid down through their G.O. Ms. No. 20 that the land value shall be calculated based upon the market value fixed by the Registration Department for the land in that locality. The learned Counsel for the Housing Board is fair enough in placing before me the calculation sheet of market value undertaken by it wherein it has been clearly recorded that the basic value as per the register maintained by the Sub-Registrar for the land of the said locality is Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard. Therefore, the Housing Board should have confined and fixed the market value taking the land value at Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard. Instead, it has fallen back upon a circular issued on 9.9.1993 for purpose of enhancing the market value by taking into account the favourable aspects and consequently enhanced the market value by 54% to the market value as recorded in the Registration Department. I am afraid, this is where the A.P. Housing Board had committed an error. The direction issued by this Court while disposing of WP No. 21809 of 1994 is very categoric and clear i.e., the Housing Board would fix the market value in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 20, Housing Department, dated 11.6.1984. Therefore, the Housing Board has misconstrued the direction issued by this Court. It ought to have confined the valuation strictly in terms of the directives issued by the State Government in their G.O. Ms. No. 20, Housing Department, dated 11.6.1984. In terms of Section 79 of the A.P. Housing Board Act., 1956 the government has got the power of general superintendence over the affairs of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and retained the power to issue policy guidelines to the Housing Board and the Housing Board is duty bound to comply with the same. G.O.Ms. No. 20, dated 11.6.1984, did not contemplate or authorize the Housing Board to enhance the market value based upon any favourable aspects of the site. In fact, the policy decision contained in G.O.Ms. No. 20 has to be read in the specific context of the permission being accorded to the Housing Board for alienating the stray pieces of land which are less than 100 sq. yards in size. Therefore, enhancing the market value by 54% resorted to by the Housing Board in the instant case is clearly unauthorized and erroneous.
8. It shall not be forgotten that WP No. 21809 of 1994 was decided on 23.3.1995. By the said date the Circular dated 9.9.1993 was available for the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board for computing the value of the land. But that was not pressed into service when WP No. 21809 of 1994 was contested by it. Consequently, there was no occasion for the petitioners to raise any issue concerning the same nor did this Court have the benefit of examining it's applicability to cases concerning disposal of stray pieces of land for less than 100 Sq. yards. Hence, it should be construed that the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board has waived it's right to place reliance upon the Circular dated 9.9.1993 or in the alternative it shall be deemed that such a ground is raised, but rejected by this court. In that respect, the present action of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board in relying upon the Circular dated 9.9.1993 for enhancing the market value runs counter to the direction issued by this court in WP No. 21801 of 1994 and hence that part of the valuation exercise carried out beyond the scope and limit of G.O.Ms. No. 20, Housing Dated 11.6.1984 by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board is unjust and unsustainable.
9. It will be apt to notice that the writ petitioner had filed an additional affidavit on 22.6.2007 in the above writ petition and he has categorically stated therein as under:
It is submitted that I am ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard for alienating the land in my favour.
In view of this development, the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the land value in the locality is only Rs. 5,000/- need not detain me any further to be taken into account or consideration. In view of the readiness and willingness exercised by the writ petitioner to pay at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard, as per the value reckoned by the Housing Board, the value of the land to that extent deserves to be approved and finalized.
10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is right in pointing out that in terms of the judgment rendered in WP No. 21801 of 1994 the encroachment fee, if any, which is liable to be collected in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 20 is to be fixed with reference to a maximum period of four months, where as through the impugned Memo they have proposed to collect the encroachment fee for a period of two years from December, 1994 till November, 1996, i.e., till the actual determination took place. Admittedly, WP No. 21801 of 1994 was decided on 23.3.1995. Therefore, at best the Housing Board should have decided the entire issue in terms of the said judgment before the end of August, 1995. Since the Writ Appeal No. 849 of 1995 has been preferred by the Housing Board against the judgment in WP No. 21801 of 1994 and it is dismissed on 13.10.1995, there is no further justification for the Housing Board to have proposed to charge the encroachment fee beyond November, 1995, allowing a reasonable time to act in the matter. Hence, the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board is not justified in charging the encroachment fee beyond November, 1995.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in Duncan Industries Ltd. (supra 1) and Pallavi Refractories (supra 2) wherein it has been held as under:
: AIR2005SC744 - Supra 2
13. This Court in Union of India v. Cynamide India Ltd. : [1987]2SCR841 has held that price fixation is generally a legislative activity. It may occasionally assume an administrative or quasi-judicial character when it relates to acquisition or requisition of goods or property from individuals and it becomes necessary to fix the price separately in relation to such individuals. Such situations may arise when the owner of the goods is compelled to sell goods to the Government or its nominee and the price is to be determined according to the statutory guidelines laid down by the legislature. In such situations, the determination of price may acquire a quasi-judicial character but, otherwise, price fixation is generally a legislative activity. After observing thus, the Court held that price fixation is neither the function nor the forte of the court. The court is neither concerned with the policy nor with the rates. But in appropriate proceedings it may enquire into the question, whether relevant considerations have gone in and irrelevant considerations kept out while determining the price. In case the legislature has laid down the pricing policy and prescribed the factors which should guide the determination of the price then the court will, if necessary, enquire into the question whether policy and factors were present to the mind of the authorities specifying the price. The assembling of raw materials and mechanics of price fixation are the concern of the executive and it should be left to the executive to do so and the courts would not revaluate the consideration even if the prices are demonstrably injurious to some manufacturers and producers....
(2006) 3 SCC (a), 141 - Para 35 - Supra 1
35. Turning to the Article 14 argument, we emphatically reiterate the now-accepted position that Article 14 does not require this Court to examine the intricacies of an economic scheme or pricing policy for its merits or its correctness, for that is in the domain of the executive or the legislative branches of the Government. Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India : (2002)ILLJ550SC . Indeed, even if the Scheme, as revised, is 'unwise' or even 'unjust', there is no recourse before us for, as Justice Holmes elegantly put it:
We fully understand...the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern. See Noble State Bank v. Haskell 219 US 575 at p. 580 (1910).
36. We are broadly in concurrence with the reasoning of the High Court that in matters of administrative discretion it is not open to the courts to interfere in minute details, except on grounds of mala fides or extreme arbitrariness. Interference should be only within very narrow limits, such as, where there is a clear violation of a statute or a constitutional provision, or extreme arbitrariness in the Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223 : (1947) 2 ALL ER 680 (CA) sense.
12. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that it is not for this Court to substitute its views for the purpose of determining the land value.
13. As noticed supra, it is certainly the prerogative of the Housing Board to determine the land value to be charged while fixing the market value of its properties. It is certainly not for this Court to fix or indulge in any such fixation of the market value. In fact, Section 22(g) of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956, has conferred power on the Housing Board to sell any of the properties comprised in any housing scheme. When once power of sale of properly is statutorily conferred upon a local authority like Housing Board, it goes without saying that such sales should be for consideration and if the consideration were to be valid, it must as nearly as possible reflect the true market value. But, however, what has been noticed in the instant case is that while the State Government through their G.O.Ms. No. 20, dated 11.6.1984 authorised the Housing Board to fix the market value of stray pieces of land based upon the valuation available with the Registration Department, it has not authorized any enhancement of such market value based upon any favourable aspects of such plots. That's where this Court found fault with the exercise indulged in the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board. Therefore, this Court has not substituted its opinion in the matter of fixation of the land value, as was carried out by the Housing Board. Far from that, confirmed the land value as supplied by the Registration Department. I am of the opinion that the favourable aspects which are forming part of the valuation exercise indulged in by the Housing Board are liable to be confined to cases where larger extents of land are sought to be alienated but not for stray pieces of land like a site of the dimensions of 12 ft x 36 Vi ft as in the instant case, all the more so, when it is adjoining a naala carrying drain waters of the city. I therefore do not find any justification in allowing the Housing Board to enhance the market value by 54% above Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard. I do not also find any justification for the Housing Board to charge the encroachment fee fixed by them for the period beyond November, 1995. Therefore, subject to the payment of the market value at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per sq. yard as determined by the Housing Board and together with the encroachment fee for the period between December, 1994 to November, 1995 at the rate of Rs. 6267.37 ps per month and Rs. 150/- and Rs. 50/- towards preparation of the registration plans and conveyance charges respectively by the petitioner on or before 31.10.2008, the Housing Board is directed to alienate the land under occupation of the writ petitioner to him. The writ petition stands allowed. No costs.