Disposed

Kare Laxmi, v. The District Collector / Executive Director

Telangana HC1 Feb 2006WP/26576/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition by fishermen claiming exclusion from a Tsunami relief housing scheme despite inclusion in an initial list, the Court declined to examine eligibility directly. Instead, it directed the First Respondent to conduct an enquiry jointly with revenue departments and grant housing if the petitioners are found eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st Respondent to make necessary enquiry regarding petitioners' eligibility with revenue departments and take steps to provide houses if eligible.

Kare Laxmi, Vs The District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.26576 OF 2005

¶2

ORAL ORDER:

¶3

The petitioners herein claim to be the residents of Bangarammapalem village of S. Rayavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. It is stated that they belong to fishermen community and the entire village was affected due to Tsunami causing huge loss to the fishermen community. Having taken note of the loss suffered by the fishermen community, who lost their houses along the coast line, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.77, Housing (RH.I) Department dated 1.03.2005 sanctioning 40,000 houses to Tsunami affected fishermen in the State with the unit cost of Rs.40,000/-. The terms and conditions for taking up housing for fishermen were specified thereunder. The Clause with regard to identification of the beneficiaries runs as under:

¶4

“ The Commissioner of fisheries shall identify the beneficiaries for 40,000/- houses village/Mandal and District-wise. Joint teams of Revenues and fisheries Departments will identify the list of eligible beneficiaries. The District in-charge Ministers concerned will accord approvals after which the District Collectors concerned will accord administrative sanction of the houses. No construction is to be taken up in anticipation.”

¶5

Petitioners state that in pursuance of the said scheme, the 4^th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer prepared a list of the beneficiaries in S. Rayavaram Mandal consisting of 80 names. It is claimed that the names of both the petitioners herein were also included in the said list. However, strangely, the 4^th respondent has prepared a fresh list of 161 beneficiaries and forwarded the same to the concerned officials to implement the scheme under G.O.Rt.No.77 dated 1.03.2005. Since the names of the petitioners herein were not included in the said list, this writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in canceling the list dated 24.03.2005 and preparing a fresh list with 161 beneficiaries, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶6

In response to the Rule Nisi ordered, the Joint Director of Fisheries, Visakhapatnam, filed a counter-affidavit stating that the 4^th respondent has not forwarded the list of 80 beneficiaries as contended by the petitioners. It is further stated that as a matter of fact the list consisting of 161 beneficiaries, who were identified with the assistance of the village elders by the 3^rd respondent in Bangarammapalem village, depending upon their economic condition, was received. All other allegations made by the petitioners have been denied and it is stated that the list of 161 beneficiaries prepared by the 4^th respondent had been approved by the District Collector, who is the Chairman of the District Housing Committee and Executive Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, as per the guidelines issued under G.O.Rt.No.77, dated 1.03.2005.

¶7

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶8

As per Clause (d) of G.O.Rt.No.77 dated 1.03.2005, the Commissioner of Fisheries is the competent authority to identify the beneficiaries under the scheme. As per the said clause Joint teams of Revenue and Fisheries Department have to identify the list of eligible beneficiaries. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Joint Director of Fisheries, it is stated that the beneficiaries of S. Rayavaram Mandal were identified strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued under G.O.Rt.No.77, dated 1.03.2005.

¶9

However, the petitioners pleaded that they were also the affected fishermen of the village, and they lost their houses in Tsunami, and therefore, they are entitled to the benefit under the scheme. In support of their contention the petitioners have placed before this Court a list dated 24.03.2005 said to have been prepared by the Mandal Revenue Officer, which appears to have been signed by Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Vakapadu, Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, Vakapadu, Velugu Grama Iykya Sangham, Bangarammapalem, as well as Fishermen Co-operative Society, Bangarammapalem village. The genuineness of the said list and particularly the eligibility of the petitioners cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court in exercise of Writ jurisdiction.

¶10

In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with

¶11

a direction to the 1^st respondent to make necessary enquiry with regard to the eligibility of the writ petitioners in consultation with the revenue and other departments, and in case it is found that the petitioners are also eligible as per G.O.Rt.No.77, dated 1.03.2005, necessary steps shall be taken for providing houses to the petitioners on par with the other beneficiaries.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶13

(G. ROHINI, J.)

¶14

1^st February, 2006.

¶15

Kgr

¶16

Issue CC in three days.

¶17

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.26576 OF 2005

¶19

1^st February, 2006.

¶20

Between:

¶21

Kaare Laxmi and another. .. Petitioners.

¶22

And

¶23

The District Collector/

¶24

Executive Director,

¶25

A.P. State Housing Corporation,

¶26

Visakhapatnam and three others. ..Respondents.

Kare Laxmi, v. The District Collector / Executive Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kare Laxmi, v. The District Collector / Executive Director

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

M/s. Cheminova (India) Limited Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

De-Nocil Crop Protection Limited, Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s. Kaishree Agaro Industries Limited, Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture

M/s Hard Granite Industries, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M. Ramachandra Reddy, Vs Government of Andrha Pradesh

Devarapalli Subba Rao Vs The Collector/District Election Authority