Common Order:

1. The petitioners have filed WP.No.988 of 2019 challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in conducting auction on 29.01.2019 in respect of lands admeasuring 238.97 square yards, 279.47 square yards and 179.70 square yards in Sy.No.262P situated at Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam by ignoring the representation of the 1st petitioner dated 22.01.2019 and the amounts paid by the 2nd petitioner in the year 2008 under the LRS Scheme.

2. WP.No.8197 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners challenging the execution of sale deed in favour of the 3rd respondent to an extent of land admeasuring 179.07 square yards on 04.06.2019 as gross violation of the interim orders passed by this Court on 01.02.2019, whereby the respondents were directed not to finalize the subject auction if any conducted on 29.01.2019.

3. CC.No.467 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners alleging willful disobedience on part of respondents in violating the orders of this Court in WP.No.988 of 2019.

4. If WP.No.988 of 2019 is decided on merits the issue in the other writ petition and the contempt case can be resolved. As such, WP.No.988 of 2019 is taken up as the lead case.

5. The 1stpetitioner has purchased an extent of 711 square yards of site situated in Sy.No.278, Madhuravada, Visakhpatnam vide registered sale deed dated 13.08.1993. The mother of the 2nd petitioner also purchased land admeasuring 711 square yards of site situated in Sy.No.278, Madhuravada, Visakhpatnam vide registered sale deed dated 13.08.1993.

6. It is submitted that the title of the petitioners properties is not in dispute.

The petitioners properties have 100 feet road towards the south side and there is some stray extent of land in between the petitioners land and the 100 feet road. The 2nd respondent started claiming title over lands admeasuring 238.97 square yards, 279.47 square yards and 179.70 square yards and proposed to conduct an auction for the said properties.

7. The 1st petitioner has submitted a representation dated 22.01.2019 to the 2nd respondent seeking allotment of the adjoining land at a reasonable value to the 1st petitioner. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent paid amounts for regularizing the site under LRS Scheme and submitted demand drafts which were also en-cashed.It is submitted that pending consideration of the said representation the 2nd respondent issued notification for conducting auction for allotment of vacant plots/odd bits in various layouts and proposed to conduct an auction on 29.01.2019.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent conducted auction for the vacant land abutting the petitioners properties which has resulted in denying access to the petitioners properties. It is stated that the property of the petitioners has become land locked with no access. It is submitted that the respondents have conducted the auction by blocking the road access to the petitioners. This Court granted interim directions on 01.02.2019 directing the respondents not to finalize the auction.

9. WP.No.8197 of 2019 is filed seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 04.06.2019 executed in favour of the 3rd respondent and consequential confirmation of allotment order.

10. The learned standing appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that a detailed counter is filed. It is also submitted that the petitioners cannot as a matter of fundamental right claim right and ownership of the property belonging to the 2nd respondent by virtue of submitting a requisition for allotment of the odd bit of land adjoining the petitioners property. It is submitted that even as per the requisition of the 1st petitioner that the vendor of the petitioner has cheated him along with wrong measurements in the sale deed and as such, requested the 2nd respondent for allotment of the odd bit at a reasonable rate.

11. It is also submitted that the 1st petitioner has suppressed the fact of execution of sale deed in favour of S.Suresh Kumar and transferred 99.55 square yards of land from and out of 711 square yards of land. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent conducted a physical inspection and the site survey and there is a northern approach road to the petitioners property, as such, the claim that the petitioners property is land locked is completely a misleading averment made by the 1st petitioner for maintaining the writ petition. It is also submitted the claim of the petitioners that they have paid LRS amounts vide demand drafts is unfounded and no amount was credited to the respondent authorities account.

12. It is also submitted that the petitioners have filed the writ petition with an eye on the odd bits of land belonging to the 2nd respondent and attempting to knock away the valuable property belonging to the 2nd respondent.

13. The 2nd respondent has also filed additional counter and it is submitted in the additional counter that the 1st petitioner was neither in possession or enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing of the writ petition as he had already executed a development agreement in the year 2016. It is also submitted that the request for allotment of the odd bit of land abutting the petitioners property. It is also stated that the demand drafts were never issued by the 2nd respondent and they were never encashed by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the petitioners in order to gain access to the 100 feet road sought for allotment of the land abutting the petitioners. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent never allots any property to anyone without subjecting them for auction. Accordingly, the auction was conducted. The petitioner had obtained interim orders from this Court by suppressing the facts and swearing into a false affidavit.

14. The 3rd respondent in WP.No.8197 of 2019 is the auction purchaser of the plot and has filed a counter duly stating that the 3rd respondent was declared as a successful bidder and that the entire bid amount was paid. The sale deed was also executed on 04.06.2019. It is submitted that the 3rd respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the property ever since then. It is submitted that the petitioners have access to the 100 feet road from the existing eastern side road and there is an existing road on eastern side, as such, the claim of the petitioners that their property is land locked is unfounded.

15. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Perused the material on record.

16. The petitioners representation dated 22.01.2019 clears all the air, the representation submitted by the 1st petitioner is reproduced. I, B.S.Surendranadh, D.No.53-26-9A, K.R.M.Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 013 is having a House Site at Madhurawada village vide Doc.No.993/13-08-1993 in S.No.278 of Madhurawada measuring 711 Sq.yds., directing the measurements as 80 feet x 80 feet. At the time of purchasing the seller cheated me with wrong measurements like East and West 80 feet and North and South 80 Feet including VUDA site. In this connection the VUDA site is including in my measurements i.e., 80 feet x 80 feet. The VUDA site is nearby 24 feet x 60 feet i..e, nearly 160 Sq.yds.

                  In this connection I request you sir, kindly see to allot me concern site with reasonable value.

17. The petitioners claims that his vendor had cheated him by denoting the wrong measurements by including the VUDA site. It is also categorically admitted in the representation that the site belonging to the 2nd respondent and seeks allotment at a reasonable price.

18. The petitioners have no explanation as to what prompted the petitioner to suppress the execution of a registered sale deed admeasuring 99.55 square yards of site in favour of S.Suresh Kumar and subsequent registered development agreement in favour of the builder. The petitioner has evidently sworn to a false affidavit claiming ownership over the property.

19. For maintaining the writ petition, the petitioners claim that their property is land locked and pending consideration of the representation dated 22.01.2019, the 2nd respondent could not have proceeded further in including the plot claimed by the petitioners in the proposed auction. As seen from the sketch submitted by the 2nd respondent and the auction purchaser, there is an existing road on the northern side of the petitioners property and access to the 100 feet road also is there, if the petitioners intend to enter to 100 feet road by using existing northern road.

20. The petitioners have claimed that their property is land locked with no access and by swearing into the false averments. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition. This Court by considering the said submission that their property of the petitioners would be land locked had passed interim orders. The officers of the 2nd respondent are to be held responsible for passing of such orders by this Court, timely instructions oral/written to the learned standing counsel duly informing about the falsity of the averments in the petition would not have resulted in extension of the interim orders until further orders.

21. The petitioners are guilty of swearing to a false affidavit and having approached this Court with unclean hands, the petitioners cannot claim any equities.

22. Accordingly, WP.No.988 of 2019 is dismissed and the WP.No.8197 of 2019 also does not deserve any consideration and accordingly the writ petition No.8197 of 2019 is dismissed. The contempt case No.467 of 2019 is filed alleging the violation of interim orders, as the WP.No.988 of 2019 is dismissed, the contempt case deserves to be closed.

23. In the result, WP.No.988 of 2019 and WP.No.8197 of 2019 are dismissed and CC.No.467 of 2019 is closed. No costs.

                  As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.