Disposed

S. Venkateswar Rao, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC3 Aug 2004WP/13534/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A journalist filed a writ petition alleging illegal inaction and violation of Article 14 due to lack of allotment of house sites under a government scheme. The court refused to adjudicate the eligibility dispute, directing the District Collector to examine the petitioner's representation and take necessary action per the Government Scheme.

What did the court decide?

The District Collector was directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 18-7-2004 and take appropriate action per the Government Scheme.

S. Venkateswar Rao, Vs The District… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO : 13534 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

S. Venkateswar Rao, S/o Rama Rao, R/o.13-47, Venkatagiri, Hukumapet, Rajahmundry.

¶9

..... PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

¶12

2 The Sub Collector, Rajahmundry.

¶13

3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Urban, Rajahmundry.

¶14

..RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare inaction of the Respondents in considering the representations of the Petitioner dt.10-1-2004 and 18-7-2004 as illegal and irrational and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents to take appropriate action for identifying the names of the eligible journalists including the name of the petitioner for allotment of the house sites in respect of the land situated in Sy.No. 401/2A2 of Pidimgoyee Gram Panchayat of Rajahmundry, proposed to be made in pursuance of the proceedings of the 1st Respondent issued vide Lr. No.SO1/PRESS/97/Dt. 9-2-1998, REF L3-6230/97, Dt.4-2-1998 of Collector, Kakinada.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.N.PRAMOD, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following :

¶18

O R D E R :

¶19

The petitioner herein claims to be a Journalist. It appears, the Government issued orders dated 9-2-1998 directing the District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada, to allot the land in Survey No.401/2A2 of Pidimigoyee Gram Panchayat, for being allotted to twenty (20) Journalists. According to the petitioner, the State Government evolved a scheme for the welfare of Journalists and the process of allotting the house sites is entrusted to the District Public Relations Officer (DPRO). Pursuant to the enquiries made by the D.P.R.O., the petitioner submitted required particulars. But he was not allotted any house site. According to the petitioner, some of the ineligible Journalists are being given house sites ignoring the claims of the persons like petitioner. He also alleges that the allotment of house sites to Journalists lacks transparency. The petitioner and others have submitted a representation on 18-7-2004 to the District Collector, seeking redressal, in vain. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General), this Court is convinced that at this stage this Court cannot adjudicate the dispute whether the respondents have allotted the plots/house sites to eligible persons or not? This Court is also of the opinion that it would be better if the District Collector looks into the representation made by the petitioner and others on 18-7-2004. The District Collector may consider the same and if necessary, hear the petitioner herein and take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with the Government Scheme.

¶21

The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

(V.V.S. RAO, J.) Dt. 03-08-2004.

¶23

Msr.

¶24

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

1 The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

¶29

2 The Sub Collector, Rajahmundry.

¶30

3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Urban, Rajahmundry.

¶31

4. 2CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue (General),

¶32

High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶33

5. 2CD copies.

¶34

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.13534 of 2004

¶36

Dt.03-08-2004.

¶37

(Msr)

S. Venkateswar Rao, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Venkateswar Rao, v. The District Collector

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

Smt. a. Mutyabai, W/o. A.S. Rao, Vs The Commissioner

Vithanala Yerraiah, Vs The Divisional Forest officer

K. Pitchaiah Vs The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs

Y.Sreenivas, Vs The Commissioner

The Narasaraopet Taluk Fisheries Coop. Society Ltd., Vs The Divisional Panchayat Officer

Gangireddy Venkata Lakshmamma Vs Gangireddy Kotamma