L.Rajaiah, v. The State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION NO.9726 of 2015 Between:

L. Rajaiah PETITIONER AND 1.

The State of Telangana, rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others.

RESPONDENTS

ORDER:

The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings Rc.No.A/21/2008, dated 7.01.2015 issued by the 6th respondent in not allotting a plot to him in the first list of beneficiaries as per the house numbers, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to allot a plot to him as per his H.No.1-26, as was done in the case of first list of beneficiaries. The case of the petitioner is that he possesses agricultural land admeasuring

Ac.5.28 guntas besides residential house in Gudipeta Village of Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District. For construction of Yellampally Sripada Sagar Project, the lands of Gudipeta Village have been acquired and compensation had also been paid to the affected persons. However, the land oustees were extended the benefit of allotment of housing plots and in that process, a committee was formed and a list of beneficiaries was prepared, in which the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.56. However, while allotting the plots vide proceedings dated 26.03.2012, the respondents excluded the name of the petitioner from the list. When the petitioner submitted a representation to the concerned authorities, a 2nd list was prepared allotting plot No.1778 to the petitioner at a far off place.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.04.2013 to the 2nd respondent, directed the District Revenue authorities to adjust and allot any suitable alternative plot to the petitioner. In spite of the said direction, the respondents are not considering his case. Hence he filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though in the representation dated 01.12.2014 the petitioner specifically mentioned Plot Nos.40, 219, 226, 379, 380, 393, 526, 596 etc., as vacant, and there was a specific direction issued by the 2nd respondent, the respondents rejected his application with an endorsement that there are no vacant plots available in front of plot No.1778, which was allotted to him earlier.

In that view of the matter, interest of justice would be met, if a direction be issued to the 6th respondent to take into consideration the representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 6th respondent mentioning available vacant plots. As and when such representation is made, the 6th respondent is directed to consider the same subject to the eligibility of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J.

8th April, 2015

Js.