Disposed

M.Sathamma, v. The Commissioner of Labour

Telangana HC4 Jun 2009WP/9324/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Commissioner of Labour to consider representations regarding allotment of excess land under various G.O.s. The Court directed the respondent to consider the petitions and pass orders expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

M.Sathamma, Vs The Commissioner of Labour — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9324 of 2007

¶5

Between: M.Sathamma, D/o.Narsaiah, R/o.1-1-364/45/A, adjacent SRT 274 Quarter, Industrial Housing Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20

¶6

..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

The Commissioner of Labour, Govt.of A.P, at Anjaiah Bhavan, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20.

¶9

.....RESPONDENT

¶10

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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring in action of the respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 29-11-2003, 25-05-2005 and 15-03-2006 finally on 20-04-2007 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider to allotment of excess land of 80 Sq.yards bearing house No.1-364/45/A, beside SRT 274, Industrial Housing Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Chikkadpally,Hyderabad in pursuance of I.G.ms.No.515 Revenue(Assignment-1) Dept dt.19-042003, 2, G.O.Ms.No.2 Labour Employment Training and Factories(LabIII) Dept dated 31-01-2002, 3.G.O.Ms.No.67, Labour Employment Training and Factories(Lab-III) Dept.dt.28-11-2000 and pass such other order or orders.

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SAI RAM GOUD

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR

¶13

The Court made the following :

¶14

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 9324 of 2007

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

The petitioner herein claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the house bearing No.1-1-364/45/A, which is situated adjacent to SRT 274, Industrial Housing Colony, Jawahar Nagar, Chikkadapally, Hyderabad. It is stated that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said house constructed in a total extent of 80 Square Yards for more than 40 years and she is entitled to allotment of the same in terms of G.O.Ms.No.515 Revenue (Assignment-1) Department dated 19.4.2003, G.O.Ms.No.2 Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-III) Department dated 31.01.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.67, Labour Employment Training and Factories (Lab-III) Department dated 28.11.2000. It is stated that in spite of repeated representations made by her, the respondent failed to consider her request for allotment of the land/house in her possession. Hence, the present writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the

¶17

respondent in not considering the representations of the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal.

¶18

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶19

Under G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 28.11.2000, orders were issued for regularization and registration of excess land occupied by the allottees under the subsidized Industrial Housing Scheme.

¶20

The petitioner claims that she is entitled to the benefits granted under the said order. Since the representations made by the petitioner dated 29.11.2003, 25.5.2005, 15.3.2006 and 20.4.2007 with a prayer to extend the benefit of the above said orders are pending with the respondent, it is for the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with the law.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the claim made by the petitioner that she is entitled to the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.515 dated 19.4.2003, G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 31.01.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 28.11.2000, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶22

Justice G.Rohini

¶23

Date:04.06.2009 mrb

M.Sathamma, v. The Commissioner of Labour

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sathamma, v. The Commissioner of Labour

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

M/s. Mohans Wood Works Vs The Project Director, Rajiv Vidya Mission (Ssa)

S. Laxmipathi S/o Ashalu Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a Government of

Akhila Ramachandran, Vs The Registrar, Dr. Nrt university of Health Sciences

Kondaveeti Raghunatha Reddy, Vs The Regional Deputy Director

B.Muralidhar, Vs The Director of School Education, Government of

Raghuram Kondala, Vs Dr. N.T.R.University of health Sciences