Allowed

Smt. Majji Kondamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Apr 2023WP/36562/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by beneficiaries of the Indiramma Housing Scheme challenging non-delivery of flats, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside cancellation orders passed by the District Collector without prior notice to the petitioners, directing the respondents to follow due procedure if eligibility is still disputed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation orders dated 14.04.2017 set aside; High Court directed respondents to follow due procedure if petitioners are deemed ineligible.

Smt. Majji Kondamma Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

>7 'X. •

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

Pl
w

¶5

TUESDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

S'''

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 36562 OF 2016

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. Majji Kondamma, W/o. Rajababu (late), aged 45 years Occ. Agri Coolie 2. Shaik Fazulunnissa Begam, W/o. Babji, aged about 44 years Occ. Agri Coolie 3. Majji Somulamma, wife of Joginayudu, aged about 5,0 years Occ. Agriculture Coolie . All the petitioners are residents of Ward No.31, Annapurnamma Peta Bosu Pomma Veedhi, Rajahmundry Urban East Godavari District A.P. 533 101

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad .

¶15

2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI Secretary - Housing Board Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶16

The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada

¶17

The AP State Housing Board Corporation &, Urban Housing Projects, rep. by its Project Director, Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶18

5. The Executive Engineer, Urban Projects Housing Corporation, Rajahmundry East Godavari District

¶19

The Tahsildar,, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be phased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the matter of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not delivering the possession of the house Flat Nos. FF-8, GF-5 and GF-3 of IHSDP Phase-ll construction of Flats G+2 at Rajahmundry Town under the Indiramma Housing Scheme in Endowment Layout after receiving the entire amounts from the petitioners herein is illegal, arbitrary and opposed to Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to deliver the question to the petitioners herein and pass such other order or orders that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶22

¶23

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 45025 OF 2016)

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that iri the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitipn, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for allotment of Houses / Flat Nos. FF-8, GF-5 and GF-3 of IHSDP construction Of Flats G+2 at Rajahmundry Town under the Indiramma Housing Scheme in Endowment Layout by delivering the possession to the petitioners herein, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such other order or orders that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KISHORE KUMAR.A Counsel for the Respondent 2 : GP FOR HOUSING Counsel for the Respondents 4 & 5 : E V JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING COOP LTD) Counsel for the Respondents 1, 3 & 6 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER

¶26

¶27

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA WRIT PETITION No.36562 OF 2016

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶30

"...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the matter of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not delivering the possession of the house Flat Nos.FF-8, GF-5 and GF-3 of IHSDP Phase-H construction of Flats G+2 at Rajahmundry Town under the Indiramma Housing Scheme in Endowment Layout after receiving the entire amounts from the petitioners herein is illegal arbitrary and opposed to Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to deliver the flats in question to the petitioners herein and pass such other order or orders that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.. . ”

¶31

2. The petitioners are the residents of Rajahmundiy Municipality. In pursuance of a scheme introduced by the State Government of constructing G+2 flats sharing the funds by the Central Government as well as the State Government including the beneficiaries, the 4^ respondent identified the petitioners as eligible candidates and entered into agreement with the petitioners. The estimated cost of houses is Rs. 1,66,300/-, for each flat/house. QjiL of the said amount, the Central

¶32

¶33

¶34

Government’s subsidy is Rs.80,000/- and the and the State Government’s share is Rs.41,000/- and the remaining balance of Rs.45,800/- is to be paid by the petitioners in three (3) installments at a rate of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 15,000/and Rs. 15,800/-.

¶35

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have paid the entire amount but, in spite of the same, the respondents having aliotted the flat numbers to the petitioners long back, have not handed over the flats to the petitioners. Challenging the said inaction of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed.

¶36

When the writ petition came up for admission on 28.10.2016, this Court was pleased to grant the following interim order;

¶37

Till then, both parties shall maintain status quo.” 5. The respondents have failed to file a counter affidavit, but, however, have produced a copy of the instructions of the 2»<i respondent vide Memo NO.2019477/R&UH.A1/2023-1, dated 14.03.2023, wherein it is stated that the petitioners were initially granted individual houses under BLC Phase-III, 2008-09 scheme in 6i> Ward of Rajahmundiy and they constructed the houses. Thereafter, the District Collector, East Godavari District through

¶38

proceedings dated 14.04.2014 have . cancelled houses sanctioned/allotted under ISHDP Scheme of the said petitioners.

¶39

The petitioners’ names were initially placed in the IHSDP scheme Rajahmundry, but, thereafter, on enquiry by the Revenue, Housing and Municipality Departments, it was found that the petitioners herein were having their own houses bearing door ■Nos.44-10-7/9, 44-16-7/1, 44-16-7/15 in 6«»‘ ward. Rajahmundry. Hence, the District Collector, East Godavari District, vide Procgs.No. 122/2006/AM(Eng)/IHSDP/ Dt. 14’04.2017 has cancelled the three (3) houses . sanctioned/allotted under IHSDP' scheme to the petitioners and . .further stated that the respondents are ready to refund the amounts received from the petitioners. But, however, the petitioners are residing in the said houses unauthorizedly, even though they are not eligible for sanction of the houses under the said scheme and are not vacating the houses in spite of several instructions under the guise of the interim order granted by this Court.

¶40

As per the said instructions, it appears that the allotment of the houses under the IHSDP Scheme was already cancelled by the District Collector vide his proceedings dated 14.04.2017 on the ground that the petitioners are not eligible as

¶41

,a».'sssiBi»aa

¶42

• . „ ’ s ■

¶43

they possess their own houses bearing door Nos.44-16-7/9, 44- 16-7/1, 44-16-7/15 in 6th ward, Rajahmundiy, which was admittedly without any prior show-cause notice to the petitioners and it is also a fact that the petitioners are in possession of the said allotted houses in view of the interim orders granted by this Court.

¶44

8. In view of the fact that the said cancellation orders are issued without any prior notice to the petitioners, which is admittedly in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned cancellation orders dated 14.04.2017, leaving it open to the respondents to follow due procedure, if at all they feel that the petitioners are ineligible for the said house sites.

¶45

9. Accordingly, with the above direction, this Writ

¶46

Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any. in this Writ

¶48

Petition shall stand closed.

¶49

SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ■

¶50

To,

¶51

s!ecti6n officer

¶52

The Principal Secretary. Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat. Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶53

The Principal Secretary - Housing Board Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Tulluru Mandal, Guntur District

¶54

I he District Collector. East Godavari District at Kakinada

¶55

The Project Director. A.P. State Housing Board Corporation &, Urban Housing Projects, Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶56

EastGodavari DiSriS®'^’ Projects Housing Corporation. Rajahmundiy

¶57

The Tahsildar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District

¶58

One CC to SRI KISHORE KUMAR.A, Advocate [OPUC] o’ HOUSING. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING

¶59

COOP LTD) Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

x 10.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE. High Court of Andhra Pradesh; [OUT] 11. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATE0:04/04/2023

ORDER

WP.No.36562 of 2016

¶66

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶67

I 1 122 SEP 2023 S
. Current Section
r Mf-1^*^ .

Smt. Majji Kondamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Majji Kondamma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagarapu Appala Naidu Vs the Union of India

Gundubogula Venkateswara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Akula Lakshmi Narayana Vs the State of Ap

Badveli Veera Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S Lakshmi Deepak Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Viswateja Constructions Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh