Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J. - (1.) IN response to a public notice issued by the second respondent corporation dated 05.11.2007, the petitioner's bid offering Rs. 21,00,00,000/ - was accepted and he was allotted Plot No. 15. The total cost of land works out to Rs. 630,00,00,000/ -. Undisputedly the petitioner paid two instalments of Rs. 189 crores each and together with EMD paid, the total amount of Rs. 403 crores was paid to the second respondent. However, subsequently, the correspondence ensued between the petitioner and the second respondent and ultimately, the petitioner approached this Court by W.P. No. 27133 of 2009 seeking Mandamus directing respondents to restitute/refund the amount of Rs. 403 crores paid by the petitioner together with interest at 18% per annum. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge on 12.03.2012 and W.A. No. 1407 of 2012, preferred by the petitioner against the said order, was also dismissed by the Division Bench on 05.03.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an SLP (Civil) No. 21543 of 2012, which was, however dismissed by the Supreme Court on 05.08.2013. The order of the Supreme Court is extracted hereunder for the sake of convenience: "Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that he instructions to withdraw this special leave petition, which is hereby dismissed as withdrawn. This order shall not however prevent the petitioners from seeking such redress as may be open to it in law before the government."
(2.) PETITIONER , thereafter, has filed the present review petition along with an application seeking condonation of delay vide WAMP. No. 1351 of 2014. By order of this Court dated 29.04.2014, the delay was condoned on payment of costs, which was complied with by the petitioner and thereafter, in this review petition, notice was ordered. Subsequently, the State of Telangana, which has come into existence after the Reorganization of the then State of Andhra Pradesh was impleaded vide WAMP. No. 2129 of 2014 on 04.07.2014. Subsequently, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General, who appears along with the standing counsel for the second respondent were heard on 19.09.2014 and hearing was concluded on 05.12.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate General have submitted their written submissions towards the end of December 2014 and early January 2015 respectively. The primary contention raised in support of this review petition is that Plot No. 15, which was allotted to the petitioner and subsequently, renumbered as Plot No. 15 -A, was the subject matter of a writ petition and a writ appeal, was found to have been declared as heritage site long prior to auction. However, when the SLP was pending, the petitioner states that the second respondent offered to allot alternate Plot No. 16 -A to the petitioner instead of Plot No. 15 -A and in view of that, SLP was withdrawn with a liberty to seek redressal before the Government. Petitioner, however, states that subsequently it came to their: knowledge that Plot No. 15 -A as well as Plot No. 16 -A are declared as heritage site and precinct and rock foundations therein are required to be preserved. Thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have taken up further verification and came to know of Sy. No. 83/1, as having been declared as heritage site and precincts in the year 2003 itself and alleging that the said vital information was suppressed and not disclosed to any of the bidders including the petitioner, the present review petition is filed based on the non -disclosure of a new and important fact. Petitioner, therefore, contends that non -disclosure of the said material fact requires the decision of this Court in W.A. No. 1407 of 2012 to be reviewed.
(3.) MR . C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has elaborated the said ground extensively by placing reliance upon the reports of the Heritage Conservation Committee as well as the notifications issued by the Government declaring the list of heritage precincts in terms of Regulation 13(1) of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority Zoning Regulations 1981 and Section 59(1) of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Learned senior counsel has also placed reliance upon the report of the Officers Committee on the issue of development land of second respondent corporation in Sy. No. 83/1 of Rayadurg village of Ranga Reddy District wherein it is recorded with regard to Plot Nos. 15 -A and 16 -A as follows: ;