High Court for State of TelanganaWP/16722/2016dismissed no costs

Smt. Darapu Kanaka Durga v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

2017-08-23S.V.Bhatt5 pages

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT W.P. No.16722 OF 2016 ORDER:

Heard Mr.M.Pitchaiah for petitioners and Mr.K.Subba Rao for respondents 1 to 3.

The petitioners pray for Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents in regularising the constructions raised by petitioners in Survey No.86 of Bhanoji Thota, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and attempting to demolish the structures raised by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.296 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 12.08.2015. The petitioners pray for a direction to respondents to regularise their constructions in Survey No.86 of Bhanoji Thota in terms of G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 12.08.2015.

Through G.O.Ms.No.296 dated 12.08.2015, the 1st respondent introduced scheme for regularisation unobjectionable encroachments in Government land in urban areas to an extent of 100 square yards occupied by persons from below the poverty line at free of cost. The petitioners claim to have applied for regularisation of possession and constructions raised by the petitioners in Survey No.86 of Bhanoji Thota. The cause of action for filing the writ petition is that when the applications filed by petitioners for regularisation are pending with the respondents, the respondents are attempting to dispossess the petitioners or demolish the structures in the subject matter of writ petition. On 26.05.2016,

this Court directed maintenance of status quo as regards constructions in Survey No.86 of Bhanoji Thota. The respondents filed petition to vacate the interim order and by way of reply in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the applications of petitioners are examined as per the policy in G.O.Ms.No.296 and they were rejected, and the rejection is also displayed on Visakhapatnam District website. The operative portion of the counter affidavit reads as follows:

"It is respectfully submitted that the writ petitioners have applied for regularization of their encroachments with the following application numbers through mee-seva and they were disposed off in terms of G.O.Ms.No.296 as shown below:

Sl.

No.

Name of the applicant Application No.

Result application Reason for rejection Date rejection 1.

Darapu Kanaka Durga, W/o.Eswara Rao VZG1001-5060828 Rejected Dwelling after 01.01.2014 19.01.2016 Nirujogi Chinnammulu W/o.Appala Naidu VZG1001-5072983, VZG1001-5073858 Rejected Vacant land Dwelling after 01.01.2014 18.04.2016 06.05.2016 3.

Janumuri Radha, W/o.

late Thata Babu VZG1001-5072819 Rejected Dwelling after 01.01.2014 16.04.2016 4.

Adireddy Chinnamma w/o.Appala Naidu VZG1001-5072985, VZG1001-5073863 Rejected Dwelling after 01.01.2014, Dwelling after 01.01.2014 07.05.2016 5.

Andala Lakshmi, W/o.Srinivas VZG1001-5072933 Rejected Dwelling after 01.01.2014 18.04.2016 6.

Mudalavalasa Bhulakshmi, W/o.Surya Narayana VZG1001-5072928 Rejected Dwelling after 01.01.2014 18.04.2016 7.

Gavireddy Kannatalli, W/o.Gavireddy Eswara Rao VZG1001-5072991 Rejected Dwelling after 01.01.2014 18.04.2016 8.

Bailapudi Ramanamma, W/o.Naidu VZG1001-5072988 Rejected Extent occupied more than 100 sq. yds.

18.04.2016 9.

Harisanka Chilakamma, W/o.Apparao VZG1001-5071201 Rejected Dwelling after 01.01.2014 16.03.2016 10.

Vasanth Parvathi, W/o.Appala Naidu Not applied .....

.....

11.

Chapa Sinkamma, Not applied ...

...

W/o.Malleswara Rao 12.

Gunta Padmavathi, W/o.Vykuntam VZG1001-5073318 Rejected Dwelling after 01.01.2014 23.04.2016

It is respectfully submitted that the rejection orders are displayed in the Visakhapatnam District Website for the knowledge of the applicants and no other communication is given to the applicants as more than 10 thousand applications were received for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.296 and the rejections were not challenged." In view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, for all purposes, the prayer as made in the writ petition cannot and could not be considered, and the petitioners have to work out the remedies available under the very scheme under which regularisation is sought for.

Mr.Pitchaiah realizing this difficulty contends that the rejection cannot and could not be taken note by this Court, for the rejection is not communicated to the petitioners and therefore will have the legal effect of an un-communicated order, and prays for direction to regularise the occupation.

After going through the scheme of regularisation, its object etc., this Court is of the view that the objection is required to be noted but liable to be rejected in limine. For appreciating this contention, Paragraph G.O.Ms.No.296 is excerpted hereunder:

"12. Processing of Applications a) All applications received in "Mee Seva" shall be forwarded to the concerned Tahsildar.

b) A Divisional Level Regularization Committee (DLRC) shall be constituted with the following officers:

i. Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer -Chairman ii. Town Planning Officer of concerned Municipal area- Member iii. Tahsildar concerned - Member & Convener

c) The Tahsildar will conduct a detailed inspection in respect of each application and make recommendation to the DLRC for taking a decision on the eligibility of the applicant. The District Collector/CCLA may prescribe a suitable Check List for use of the Tahsildar.

d) After the decision of the DLRC, the Tahsildar will issue assignment order and prepare House site patta in the name of woman member of a family and distribute to the beneficiaries in a public function. In case of woman member is not available, the eldest male member may be considered. e) Each application shall be disposed off within ninety (90) days of its receipt.

f) An Appeal on the decision of the DLRC shall lie with Joint Collector-1 within a period of ninety (90) days." From the above it is clear, the authorities, if are proposing to regularise the occupation, the procedure contemplated at various stages has to be followed. The authorities by the checklist under the scheme are not under obligation to individually communicate the orders passed on the applications filed for regularisation. The counter affidavit refers to displaying the rejection order on website. In the absence of rebuttal and keeping in view the writ prayer, this Court is unable to accept the contention raised by Mr.Pitchaiah. Now there is information that the applications are rejected.

Under the scheme, the applicants, who are not satisfied with the decision, are given liberty to file appeal before the Joint Collector within 90 days.

receipt of this order. The Joint Collector to examine and pass orders on the merits of each one of the claims.

The writ petition is dismissed with the observations. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 23.08.2017 Stp