Ngos Coop. Hse. Building Society vs. Vijaya Bhavani Adarsha Mahila Mandali Sujatha Nagar, By Pass Road, Ongole Rep. By Its President, Sirisetti Narayanamma

COURT NO.7

SECTION XIIA

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Appeal (C) Petition(s) Special Leave to $No(s)$ . $\hbox{\tt for}$ 17777-17779/2012

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/04/2012 in WP No. 11063/2004 04/04/2012 in WP No. 18083/2003 04/04/2012 in WP No. 21438/2004 passed by the High Court Of A.P. At Hyderabad)

NGO'S COOP.HSE.BUILDING SOCIETY

VERSUS

VIJAYA BHAVANI & ORS.

TTEM $NO.3$

(with application for exemption from filing O.T. and permission to file additional documents and interim relief and office report)

Date : $01/12/2016$ These petitions were called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
• Mr. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ananga Bhattacharyya, Adv. Mr. Rohit Rao N., Adv. Mr. Narayan Rao V. V. N., Adv. Mr. Mukund P. Unny, Adv. Mr. Devahuti T., Adv.
• For Respondent(s) Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, Adv. Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.

Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, Adv. (Not Present)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER

Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Commissioner for Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, has reported that the value of the property would be around Rs. 5,000/- per sq. Not Verified ard, i.e. around Rs. 2.5 Crores per acre in the year 2004.

Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the value is fixed based on the value

Petitioner(s)

Respondent(s)

fetched for small parcels of property having 8 sq. yards etc., whereas the property in dispute is 22 Acres and 44 Guntas.

The learned counsel appearing for the Temple points out that an adjacent property was auctioned in the year 2002 and the value fetched was Rs. 64 Lakhs per acre. According to Mr.Ganesh, learned senior counsel, the land in question is not adjacent to that land, but it is a different land, which is not in the vicinity.

Be that as it may, a suggestion is made to the learned senior counsel as to whether the petitioner will be willing to have a price above the auctioned price. He submits that as of now, he has no such instruction. The petitioner, if so advised, may think about the suggestion, otherwise, the matter will have to be heard on merits.

List on 14.12.2016.

The matter shall retain its position on that date.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) Court Master (Renu Diwan) Assistant Registrar