Partly allowed

Smt.S.Madhavi v. The Secretary,Ministry of Defence, Government of India

Telangana HC28 Nov 2011WP/26378/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, a land-displaced person challenged the respondents' failure to consider her employment representation for company posts arising from land acquisition. The High Court disposed of the petition at the admission stage by directing the respondents to consider her case and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents 1, 6, and 7 to consider the petitioner's employment representation and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

Smt.S.Madhavi Vs The Secretary,Ministry of Defence… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE TWENTYEIGHT DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 26378 OF 2011

¶5

Between: Smt.S. Madhavi … Petitioner V/s. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence Government of India, New Delhi & 6-Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. G. Allabakash Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Poonam Ashok Gowd Asst.Solicitor GP for Employment & Training GP for Revenue The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 26378 OF 2011

¶9

O R D E R :

¶10

Heard Sri G. Allabakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, the learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondents 2 to 7.

¶11

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not providing employment to the petitioner (land displaced person) in the sixth and seventh respondents company as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner as provided to similarly situated (land displaced persons) in the sixth and seventh respondents company.

¶12

3. Having regard to the nature of relief sought for

¶13

in the writ petition, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶14

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the

¶15

land displaced person and her land in an extent of Ac:1-00 in survey No. 316/1 and 458/A situated at Bhanur village of Patancheruvu Revenue Mandal, Medak district was acquired by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh for establishment of Bharath Dynamic Limited at Bhanur village and the said company was established in the year 1991. At that time the Company has arrived a memorandum of understanding with land displaced persons/dependents of displaced persons. Hereinafter referred to as per memorandum of understanding dated 01-01-1991 and also subsequent understanding, the BDL Company accepted that whenever found qualified displaced persons/dependent their cases will be considered. The petitioner is the daughter-in-law of land oustee Mr. M.Thirupathi Reddy and the compensation amount was received by her father-in-law. She passed SSC and completed I.T.I. Course and that she is fully eligible to hold any suitable post in the Company. The petitioner

¶16

submitted a representation dated 26-04-2011 by way of registered post and acknowledgement due to all the respondents requesting them to consider her case for appointment in any suitable post in B.D.L. Company, Bhanur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak district. Since the representation is not considered, therefore, she filed the present writ petition.

¶17

5. No counter has been filed.

¶18

6. The case of the petitioner is that she is the land displaced person and her land in an extent of Ac:1-00 in survey No. 316/1 and 458/A situated at Bhanur village of Patancheruvu Revenue Mandal, Medak district was acquired by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh for establishment of sixth and seventh respondent Company at Bhanur village and the said company was established in the year 1991. At that time the Company has arrived a memorandum of understanding with land displaced persons/dependents of displaced persons. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 26-04-2011 to all the respondents, requesting them to provide her suitable employment in the sixth and seventh respondents company but the same has not been considered. The petitioner filed

¶19

material papers along with the writ petition which shows that notice of Award under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 was issued to the effect that an award has been passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Sangareddy in the matter of the acquisition of the land for Defence Ordinance Factory situated in Bhanoor village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak district. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sanga Reddy issued a certificate dated 25-5-2011 certifying that the petitioner is the land displaced person and being the wife of Mr.M.Srinivasa Reddy, whose land in an extent of Ac:100 situated in Survey No. 316/1 and 458/A had been acquired for establishment of Bharath Dynamic Limited, Bhanur. The petitioner made a representation on 26-042011 requesting the respondents to provide her suitable employment in the sixth and seventh respondent Company. It is stated that under Secretary to the Government of India issued office memorandum, dated 048-2011 marking a copy of the same to the petitioner, which reads as hereunder:

¶20

“The undersigned is directed to forward herewith, in original, a representation dated 25-042011 received from Smt. A. Jyothi wife of S. Sridhar

¶21

Reddy, district Medak, Andhra Pradesh. It is requested that appropriate action may please be taken in the matter and a suitable reply be sent to the petitioner, under intimation to this Ministry”.

¶22

7. It appears that thereafter the respondents have taken no action. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sixth and seventh respondent have to consider the case of the petitioner for providing employment in their company. Therefore, it is clear from the record that the matter is pending for consideration with the respondents. As per the office memorandum, dated 04-8-2011 of the under Secretary to the Government of India, No.20011/3/2011/Coord-II, Government of India/Bharath Sarkar, Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya, Co-ordination-II, whereunder the concerned authorities were directed to take appropriation action and inform the same to the petitioner.

¶23

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1991 and she is eligible to hold any suitable post in the sixth and seventh respondents company and that her representation is

¶24

pending with the respondents without consideration. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶25

9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1, 6 and 7 to consider the representation dated 26-04-2011 filed by the petitioner requesting the respondents for providing her employment against the land displaced person scheme and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

10. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH.

¶28

28-11-2011 I s L

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO. 26378 OF 2011

¶31

Circulation No. Date:28-11-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

Smt.S.Madhavi v. The Secretary,Ministry of Defence, Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.S.Madhavi v. The Secretary,Ministry of Defence, Government of India

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.Rajeswar Rao Vs The Regional Manager

Smt Satyamma , Julakanti Satyavati Vs The District B.C. Welfare Officer

E. Dharma, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

M. Srinivas Reddy Vs The Secretary

K.Shiva Kumar Vs The Secretary

Sri Lakshmi Narsimha High School, Mandalur village Vs The Government of Ap., rep.by its Principal secretary