Kommidi Raghava Reddy, v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P. No.6925 OF 2018 ORDER:

Heard Mr.P.Venugopal for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

The petitioner is freedom fighter and also a nonagenarian. The petitioner has been representing for consideration of petitioner's case for allotment of house plot or agricultural land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 11.03.1997. The petitioner on 20.06.2017 represented to the District Collector, District Warangal (Urban) for allotment of the house plot.

The Assistant Government Pleader places on record memo No.E1/ 350/ 2018 dated 10.03.2018 which reads thus: " Memo Sub:- Freedom Fighters- Warangal Rural District & Division- Parkal Mandal- Smt.Nalla Kanakamma, Freedom Fighter SpouseRequest to allot Agricultural land at Hanamkonda-Reg.

Ref:- A/o. Smt.Nalla Kanakamma /R/o.Puligilla (V), Parkal (M), Dated 02.03.2018.

It is to inform that, vide reference cited; you have submitted an application requesting to allot house site/agricultural land under Freedom Fighter Quota. On verification of your application, you were requested to allot house site/agricultural land at Hanamkonda Mandal of Warangal Urban District. Therefore, it is informed that, allotment of land from one District to another is not possible. Hence, you are advised to apply before the District Collector, Warangal Urban.

Hence, your application cannot be processed."

Now, it is contended that the application is not pending and the petitioner may be given liberty to represent before the District Collector, District Warangal (Rural), Telangana State/ respondent No.2 for consideration of petitioner's case under G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 11.03.1997. The District Collector, Warangal (Urban) may be right in informing the Court that the application filed by the petitioner is not subsisting. This Court is of the view that the administration and/ or the Courts of law for that matter must not only see that justice is done but also seem to have been done. If we ask a nonagenarian to start the request afresh then it is difficult to conceive when the fruits of the efforts of petitioner would be realised. It cannot also be ignored that the District Collector, Warangal (Urban) did not also reply if he does not have jurisdiction within reasonable time. The request since has to be considered by the respondents, to meet the ends of justice and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is disposed of by this order:

The petitioner is given liberty to re-submit the representation dated 20.06.2017 by registered post with acknowledgement due by enclosing a copy of this order to 1st and 2nd respondents within two weeks from today. The 1st respondent considers the representation and issue directions as are warranted to 2nd respondent for consideration of petitioner's case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 11.03.1997 within four weeks thereafter. The 2nd respondent can also independently take up the exercise and consider the case of

petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.185 dated 11.03.1997 within six weeks from today.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ S.V.BHATT, J Date:19.06.2018 Stp