Dismissed

Bingi Narsaiah, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary

Telangana HC20 Nov 2012WP/3507/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions where the petitioner, claiming land ownership and eligible for employment under G.O.Ms.No.98, sought a direction to authorities to initiate action on aRepresentation. The Court held the petitioner failed to establish prima facie title or entitlement and that it cannot direct executive hierarchy to act on internal letters.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions and connected writ miscellaneous petition were dismissed without costs.

Bingi Narsaiah, Vs The State of A.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR

¶2

W.P.M.P.No.4578 of 2010

¶3

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.3507 of 2010 and

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.3507 of 2010

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

Heard Sri K.Venumadhav, the learned counsel for petitioner, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for second respondent and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶8

2. In this writ petition the petitioner is claiming issuance of a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to forthwith initiate action for passing appropriate orders pursuant to the letter No.6005/PR-IV/2009-2 dated 16.12.2009 issued by the first respondent to the second respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon. In W.P.M.P.No.4578 of 2010 the petitioner also sought for a direction to the first respondent to forthwith initiate action pursuant to the aforesaid letter.

¶9

3. This writ petition was earlier disposed of on 18.02.2010 with a direction to the first respondent to initiate action pursuant to the letter dated 16.12.2009 issued by it to the second respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law at the earliest. That order was set aside on 24.08.2012 in Review WPMP No.20850 of 2011 for reasons recorded therein. That order has become final. After hearing both counsel, the writ petition is again taken up for disposal today.

¶10

4. The papers filed by the petitioner would show that on a

¶11

representation made by one Sri B.Narasimha Goud, President, State SC/ST/BC/Minorities Welfare Society, Hyderabad, the Joint Secretary to Government, Energy Department, by his letter dated 13.11.2009 forwarded the said representation to the second respondent for considering and taking necessary action on the same and to intimate the action taken to the Government. The Joint Secretary again sent a reminder for taking action by his another letter dated 15.12.2009, this time to the Assistant Secretary (IR, C, Reg), A.P. Transco, Vidyut Soudha. Thereafter the Additional Secretary to Government, Energy Department, sent another reminder dated 16.12.2009 to the second respondent and another. A copy of the aforementioned representation is not available.

¶12

5. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition would however show that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land to an extent of Acs5-00 in Sy.No.578 of Sulimila village. His plea is that the said land has been acquired by the second respondent which has constructed a power sub-station over it in the year 1994 without paying any compensation. It is also the case of the petitioner that under G.O.Ms.No.98 Irrigation (Projects Wing) Department, dated 15.04.1986 his nominees are also entitled to employment following the acquisition of the above land.

¶13

6. The second respondent filed counter opposing this writ petition. It must be stated here that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is mentioned that petitioner earlier filed O.S.No.52 of 1994 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Yellandu, for a perpetual injunction and in that he sought for a temporary injunction in I.A.No.200 of 1994 for protection of his

¶14

possession of the land against the respondents but that was refused. Consequently, he says that he filed an appeal i.e. C.M.A.No.19 of 1995 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem, and that appeal was allowed on 20.12.1996. It is however brought to my notice by the respondents’ counsel that the suit O.S.No.52 of 1994 was dismissed subsequently on the ground that the petitioner herein has no title to the land in question. It is also the case of the second respondent that the land in question is government land and the question of paying any compensation or applying the aforementioned G.O.Ms.No.98 does not apply. It must be stated here that this G.O.Ms.No.98 provides for a scheme to give employment to the owners of the land which has been acquired for irrigation or other projects covered thereby on the premise that such land owners become displaced persons and may have lost their means of livelihood. It is also stated that the nominees of such land holders are also provided employment opportunities on sufficient proof being adduced of their claims to the lands. Now coming back to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner’s counsel however disputed above plea of the second respondent regarding the dismissal of O.S.No.52 of 1994 on the ground of want of title and that he had no possession of the land in question at any time.

¶15

7. Having regard to the reliefs claimed, it is the duty of the petitioner to place before this court all the documents or other material to prima facie show that he has title to the land in question and that he would either as land owner or otherwise be covered by G.O.Ms.No.98. The petitioner has not done this. It may also be noted that the petitioner is only relying upon the khasra pahani of 1954-1955 without any further proof or material. The petitioner’s counsel however says that as per the letter dated

¶16

16.12.2009 of the first respondent the second respondent can consider all these aspects on the representation mentioned therein and decide the matter one way or the other. It may be noted that this Court will not and cannot entertain such a request. To claim any direction from this Court the petitioner has to establish prima facie a case regarding his entitlement to the benefits under G.O.Ms.No.98 referred to supra. It is clear that the petitioner has just made a representation and demands the second respondent to examine the same and investigate his right instead of himself establishing his right first. This is a very strange procedure which is adopted by the petitioner. It is well settled that a person who approaches this Court for a mandamus or any other direction should first establish his legal right and if he fails in establishing such a right this Court cannot interfere in the matter. In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons it follows that this Court cannot grant any direction or writ as sought for by the petitioner.

¶17

8. Parting with the matter, it may be noted that if the second respondent is a subordinate authority to the first respondent in the hierarchy of the executive branch of the Government it is always open for it to act on the letter of the first respondent or it is also open for the latter to initiate action on the aforesaid letter if it thinks fit to do so and this court cannot interfere in that process.

¶18

9. Accordingly, this writ petition and the WPMP No.4578 of 2010 are both dismissed. No costs.

¶19

N. RAVI SHANKAR, J

¶20

20^th November 2012 CVRK

Bingi Narsaiah, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bingi Narsaiah, v. The State of A.P. Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary

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

Meka Ratna Kumari, Vs Kamma Satyanarayana

Dorai Kannan, Vs State of A.P.

Syed Abdul Quddus Vs K. Vijaya Lakshmi

A.Narasimha Murthy Vs Tirumal Tirupathi Devesthanam, rep.by its Executive

T. Narsimha Reddy Vs The Labour Court-Ii, Rep. by its Presiding Officer

Chakkakula Bullemma Vs The Municipal Commissioner, Machilipatnam Municipality