Disposed

B.V.K.B.N. Ramana Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Feb 2020WP/2600/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court declined to grant permanent pattas based on eligibility, holding it could not decide eligibility under Article 226. Instead, it directed respondents to consider petitioner representations positively if eligible under revenue standing orders and state policy. Relief against respondents 3 and 4 for interfering with construction was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 5 to 7 directed to consider representations positively if petitioners found eligible; relief against respondents 3 and 4 rejected.

B.V.K.B.N. Ramana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.2600 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, seeking direction against respondent Nos.5 to 7 to issue permanent pattas to petitioners for plot Nos.3, 4, 8, 7, 10, 9 and 6 respectively in Sy.No.32 situated at Kurmanna Palem village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, based on the proceedings in R.C.No.118/88-90-HC dated 16.06.1990 passed by 7^th respondent as well as proceedings E-office No.1857 42/2019/B dated 26.06.2019 passed by 6^th respondent herein/Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam to petitioners, subsequently to approve the said plots by respondent Nos.3 and 4 for construction of buildings by petitioners.

¶5

The petitioners occupied house sites at Mulagada village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in Sy.Nos.57 and 88 to 91, respondent Nos.5 to 7 evicted the petitioners and some other encroachers to lay bye-pass road towards Steel Plant. On the said ground 7^th respondent herein/Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal through proceedings vide R.C.No.118/89-90-HC, dated 16.06.1990 issued temporary house site pattas for an extent of 60 Sq.Yds to each of the petitioners in Sy.No.32 situated at Kurmanna Palem village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Petitioners were given temporary pattas with plot Nos.3, 4, 8, 7, 10, 9 and 6 respectively, the said temporary pattas for the above plots are issued to petitioners for immediate rehabilitation. Even though respondent Nos.5 to 7 issued temporary pattas for immediate shelter to the petitioners and other

¶6

¶7

encroachers, they have not shown individual plots to the allottees. On the said reason petitioners and other allottees submitted several representations, both oral and in writing, requesting respondent Nos.5 to 7 to allot individual plots, but they failed to do so.

¶8

After several representations to respondent Nos.5 to 7, in the year 2017, Mandal Surveyor of 7^th respondent office came to the allotted plots, shown individual plots to the allottees. At this juncture, petitioners constructed house/shed in the allotted site, living therein. In the said process, some unknown persons are trying to occupy the house site of petitioners as well as other allottees. Then 1^st petitioner and granddaughter of 2^nd petitioner submitted representation to respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 25.04.2018 with request to allot regular house site pattas in the place of temporary house site pattas, but respondent Nos.5 to 7 did not take any action. On the same ground petitioner Nos.1 to 4 filed W.P.No.26932 of 2018 and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 filed W.P.No.47645 of 2018 on the file of erstwhile High Court of A.P at Hyderabad, seeking direction to provide regular house site pattas in the place of temporary pattas. The said writ petitions came for hearing and the erstwhile High Court of A.P at Hyderabad based on the submission of learned Government Pleader disposed of the writ petitions with direction to petitioners to submit their representations, afresh through Mee-seva within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, on receipt of such representation, respondent Nos.5 to 7 shall consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with the procedure established by law within 4 weeks thereafter and

¶9

¶10

communicate the decision taken thereof to the petitioners within 2 weeks.

¶11

In pursuance of direction issued by the Court in the writ petitions referred above, petitioners submitted application through Mee-seva to the government web portal for allotment of house sites, but the website was closed. Thereafter petitioners made representation to 7^th respondent on 27.03.2019 for issue of permanent pattas for the plots in their occupation. Subsequently recommendations were made in favour of the petitioners to 4^th respondent, for approval. Again petitioners submitted another representation to 6^th respondent on 06.06.2019 with request to conduct enquiry. Thereafter petitioners in person submitted representation to 3^rd respondent on 03.06.2019, to 2^nd respondent on 19.06.2019 and to 5^th respondent on 19.11.2019 with request to provide permanent house site pattas to them, subsequently to approve the same by respondent Nos.3 and 4. Even though the petitioners submitted representation to respondents, they did not consider the same and 7^th respondent office came to the said property, removed the structures and harassing the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners sought for the relief as stated above.

¶12

As seen from the material on record, petitioners are allegedly evicted from the encroachments for laying bye-pass road to Steel Plant as per the proceedings vide R.C.No.118/89-90-HC dated 16.06.1990, while promising to allot alternative house sites to the persons who evicted from the land encroached by them voluntarily. Thereupon,

¶13

¶14

petitioners vacated the land voluntarily, enabling the respondents to lay bye-pass road. Consequently, petitioners were granted various plots referred above, granting temporary pattas. Thereafter, when petitioners started construction, officials of respondent Nos.3 and 4 started interfering with construction, on the ground that no permission was obtained for construction. However, no pattas were granted to petitioners on permanent basis. Since no pattas were granted despite request made by the petitioners, petitioners approached erstwhile High Court of A.P at Hyderabad and filed writ petitions for direction to issue permanent pattas to the petitioners who are parties in the present writ petition. But the Court issued the following direction:

¶15

“Having regard to the submissions, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit their representations afresh through Mee-seva within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On such receipt of representations of the petitioners, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with the procedure established by law within four (04) weeks thereafter; and, communicate the decision/s taken thereon to the petitioners within two (02) weeks thereafter.”

¶16

Accordingly, petitioners submitted their representations, but no action was taken so far.

¶17

During hearing the learned counsel for petitioners requested to issue direction to issue permanent pattas.

¶18

Issue of pattas, assigning house sites to the petitioners is subject to eligibility prescribed under BSO 15 of A.P Revenue Board Standing Orders, but this Court cannot issue such positive direction, since the eligibility to obtain pattas cannot be decided by this Court in the proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Hence, this

¶19

¶20

Court has no option, except to issue direction to dispose of the representation of petitioners, in accordance with law to decide their eligibility prescribed under BSO 15 of A.P Revenue Board Standing Orders and land allotment policy of the State and if the State found that petitioners are eligible for grant of pattas, being landless poor, respondent Nos.5 to 7 are directed to consider the representations positively, otherwise dispose of representations, in accordance with law.

¶21

So far as the relief claimed against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that petitioners did not obtain any approval of plan for raising pakka construction. In such case, respondent Nos.3 and 4 can take appropriate steps with the petitioners’ construction work, without any prior sanction. Therefore, respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be restrained as long as petitioners failed to obtain permission for construction. Hence, the relief against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is rejected, while directing respondent Nos.5 to 7 to consider the representations, if the petitioners are found eligible, grant pattas subject to availability of land and dispose of representations in accordance with law.

¶22

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no costs.

¶23

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶25

Dated 18.02.2020 Rvk

B.V.K.B.N. Ramana Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.V.K.B.N. Ramana Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govada Nireekshana Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jammalla Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sunkara Nageswara Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Vadlamudi Koteswari Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Angadala Nagamani Vs the State of Ap

Marika Surya Lakshmi, Vs the Tahsildar