AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.—The learned single Judge having noticed the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Association who are admittedly the tenants of HUDA complex, came to the right conclusion that the members of the Association have no right to compel the HUDA to sell their property to the members of the appellant Association. The learned Judge held that it is settled law that unless the appellant Association shows some enforceable right, a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued.
It is needless to express any opinion whatsoever as to how and in what circumstances HUDA sold away some portion of the land, having taken the same from the Osmania University, for construction of Aradhana cinema theatre and a bar and restaurant. The same is not challenged in the writ petition. Therefore, this court cannot make any enquiry into the same.
Be it as it may, the appellant Association cannot insist the owner of the complex to sell the same to the members of their Association. As at present, the relationship between HUDA and the members of the appellant Association is that of a tenant and landlord.
In our considered opinion, the writ petition as well as the writ appeal is totally misconceived and the learned Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant Association at the admission stage.
It is needless to observe that in case HUDA proposes to sell the property in question, it shall always be open to the members of the appellant Association to participate in the auction if any, to be held for the purpose of sale of the property.
The writ appeal shall stand accordingly dismissed.