Ultra vires disposal of housing board land invalid where statute required a sanctioned housing scheme

A statutory housing board may dispose of land only within the limits of its parent Act and Rules, namely where the land vests in the Board and falls within a sanctioned housing scheme. Section 22(g) does not create an independent power of sale, and government directions under Section 79(1) cannot authorise action contrary to the Act. On the facts noted, the land was outside any sanctioned scheme, so the government order and sale deed were beyond power and void. Delay, laches and lack of locus standi were also rejected because the challenge concerned ultra vires action and public injury, and no intervening third-party rights were shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alienation and sale of Housing Board land in favour of the third respondent were within the powers conferred by the A. P. Housing Board Act, 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder; (ii) Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches or lack of locus standi.

Issue (i): Whether the alienation and sale of Housing Board land in favour of the third respondent were within the powers conferred by the A. P. Housing Board Act, 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder.

Analysis: The statutory scheme permits the Board to act only for housing purposes through sanctioned housing schemes. Section 45 authorises disposal of land only when it is vested in the Board and situated in the area comprised in a sanctioned housing scheme. Section 22(g) merely specifies one of the matters that may be included in a housing scheme and is not an independent source of power to sell or lease land. Rule 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Rules, 1959, similarly confines sale or lease to land in a sanctioned scheme. Section 79(1) empowers the Government to issue directions only for carrying out the purposes of the Act and cannot be used to authorise action contrary to the Act. The subject land was not part of any sanctioned housing scheme, so the Government order and the consequential sale deed were beyond statutory power.

Conclusion: The alienation and sale were ultra vires the Act and the Rules, and the impugned Government order and sale deed were void.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for delay and laches or lack of locus standi.

Analysis: Delay and laches are relevant equitable considerations, but they do not bar relief where the impugned action is ultra vires and public injury is involved, especially when no third-party rights have intervened. The petitioner was a registered society espousing housing-related public causes, and the challenge raised issues of public concern. The Court found no basis to reject the petition on the ground of standing or delay.

Conclusion: The objections of delay, laches, and lack of locus standi were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded because the impugned allotment and conveyance were held to be outside the statutory powers of the Board and the Government, and no procedural objection prevented judicial interference.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority can dispose of property only within the limits of the power conferred by its parent enactment, and neither an administrative direction nor a related government order can validate an act that the statute itself does not permit.

---