Dismissed

Doddi Achi Babu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jul 2012WP/8192/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses writ petitions challenging a District Collector's order directing a public auction for shops allocated to petitioners under the Janmabhoomi program. The court held that without evidence proving significant financial or labor contribution to construction, petitioners cannot claim co-ownership, invoke equitable estoppel, or be exempt from paying market rent derived from the a

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; however, petitioners may continue in possession if they offer rents matching highest auction bids.

Doddi Achi Babu Vs The Government of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 8828, 8185 & 8192 of 2012

¶3

DATE: 20.07.2012

¶4

W.P.No.8828 of 2012

¶5

Between : Smt.Yelaka Lakshmi.

¶6

...Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principle Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (RD.II) & others.

¶7

...Respondents.

¶8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶9

WRIT PETITION Nos. 8828, 8185 & 8192 of 2012

¶10

COMMON ORDER :

¶11

As much as common questions of law arise for consideration on similar set of facts, all these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.8828 of 2012.

¶12

In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order of the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Visakhapatnam, passed in proceedings Rc.No.472/2009/A4, dated 18.05.2011, and the consequential sealed tender-cum-open public auction notice issued vide proceedings Rc.No.14/2012, dated 24.02.2012.

¶13

The 3^rd respondent is a Grampanchayat governed by the provisions under the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act of 1994. It is an Assembly constituency and mandal headquarter and also a commercial centre. The petitioner herein and petitioners in other writ petitions claim that they were doing petty businesses on the road margins, but were evicted for the purpose of road widening and were allotted shops in the two shopping complexes constructed

¶14

one opposite to RTC complex and another opposite to petrol bunk in Chodavaram. It is the case of petitioners that the aforesaid complexes were constructed under Janmabhoomi programme and the Government invested 70% of funds, whereas 30% of funds and labour was undertaken by the beneficiaries i.e. petitioners, who are tenants in the aforesaid complexes. It is their case that in view of their contribution and further improvements made to the shops which are in their occupation, they became owners of the shops, and therefore, they are not liable to pay rents at the market rate, to the 3^rd respondentGrampanchayat.

¶15

Earlier, when there was demand for payment of arrears of rent and when eviction notices were issued, same were challenged before this Court by the association of tenants, which is registered in the name of ‘Sri Vinayaka Janmabhumi Punaravasa Shop Yajamanula Samkshema Sangam’ and also the individual tenants, in writ petition No.1290 of 2004 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 21^st of September 2010. In the aforesaid writ petition, in view of the plea of petitioners herein that they have contributed 30% for construction of shopping complexes, this Court directed the District Collector-2^nd respondent herein, to inquire into the whole issue and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law with regard to liability of petitioners, if any, for payment of

¶16

rents for the shops in their occupation and this Court also permitted the petitioners to submit their objections/representations before the District Collector within four weeks from the date of receipt of said order.

¶17

In view of the directions of this Court, the tenants in the complexes have filed their objections/representations and by considering the whole issue, the District Collector passed orders dated 18.05.2011, in proceedings Rc.No.472/2009 A4, stating that Chodavaram is a major Grampanchayat with population of 25885, whereas the funding resources are limited and it mainly depends on the house tax and grants from the Government. In the order, it is stated that the existing shopping complex is a good source of income but the existing tenants are paying meager rents or no rent and are enjoying the rights of the premises from the year 1999. The Collector has specifically recorded a finding that there is no evidence to show the contribution of the existing tenants who are in occupation of shops by paying a nominal rent of Rs.310/per month. It is also stated that most of the tenants are defaulters and arrears are due from them. By recording such findings, the Executive Officer of Grampanchayat was directed to hold sealed tender-cum-public auction for allotment of said shops and to give opportunity to the petitioners to match for such rents and grant leases for a period of three years, if the existing tenants come forward

¶18

to pay the rents fetched in the auction. There was a further direction to proceed with auction and confirm the same in favour of the highest bidder, if petitioners fail to offer the rents that fetched in the auction. As per the directions of the District Collector, when further auction notice is issued, these writ petitions are filed.

¶19

As stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is the case of petitioners that as they contributed 30% of funds required for construction of shopping complexes and further, as they were allowed to improve the constructions at their request, they became the absolute owners and possessors of their respective shops, hence, the Grampanchayat is entitled to charge only ground rent, but not the rents at market rate for their shops.

¶20

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Panchayat Secretary of the 3^rd respondent-Grampanchayat. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that Chodavaram Grampanchayat is a commercial centre and there are 50 surrounding villages to the said Grampanchayat, and every day, about 10,000 people will come to Chodavaram Grampanchayat for various purposes. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances, the Government has taken up road widening programs and in the year 1999, shopping complexes were constructed near RTC complex

¶21

and also near old Bus stand for the future needs of the growing population. It is stated that the dispossessed persons of R & B road margins were accommodated in pursuance of the orders in Janmabhoomi programme after considering their representations. In the counter, while referring to the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.1290 of 2004, it is stated that as there is no proof of contribution by the petitioners, the question of ownership as claimed by them, does not arise. It is stated that shopping complexes constructed in the land of Grampanchayat vests with the Grampanchayat. It is further stated that in any event, as per G.O.Ms.No.560, dated 22.12.1997, issued by the Government, nominal rents were collected from the petitioners for more than 5 years, as such, they have no right to continue for any further period by paying nominal rents. It is stated that if the petitioners want to continue in the existing shops, they have to pay rents as fetched in the sealed tender-cum-public auction.

¶22

Heard Sri T.S.Anand and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Sri G.Elisha, appearing for respondents.

¶23

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that as there is contribution of 30% from the

¶24

petitioners, there is no reason or justification for demanding market rent from them or taking steps for their eviction from the shops in question. It is submitted that they were also permitted to improve the shops at their own costs, as such, it is not open for respondents to evict them. The learned counsel Sri T.S.Anand also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s.Tulsi Co-operative Housing Society V. The State

¶25

of A.P .^[1] in support of his argument that by applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel, respondents cannot take any action contrary to the assurances given to the petitioners. He also relied on another judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Kanaka Durga

¶26

in Wines, Visakhapatnam V. Government of A.P .^[2] support of his argument that the actions of respondents are also in violation of legitimate expectations of the petitioners to continue in the aforesaid shops in view of the investments made by them.

¶27

In this case, it is to be noticed that even according to petitioners, they are put into possession of the shops in question and they are paying lease amounts to the Grampanchayat. Even in earlier round of litigation, it was the specific case of petitioners that they have funded to an extent of 30% and also labour for the purpose of constructing the shopping complexes, but, as there was no clarity on the alleged investments made by them, this

¶28

Court directed the District Collector to conduct inquiry in to the aforesaid issue and pass appropriate orders. In the order dated 18.05.2011 passed by the District Collector, a clear finding is recorded to the effect that the shopping complexes were constructed under Janmabhoomi programme ant that there is no evidence to show the contribution of petitioners, who are the existing tenants. In the absence of any material to show that there was either investment of funds or labour by the petitioners for construction of shopping complexes, they have no legal right to claim either co-ownership or title to the shops in question. It is clear from the material placed before this Court that as the petitioners were in occupation of the road margins by way of encroachments, when the road widening programmes were taken in Chodavaram village they, were evicted and were accommodated in the shops in question. The orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.560, dated 22^nd December 1997, makes it clear that as the persons displaced from the road margins were below the poverty line, Government issued instructions to allow such encroachers for a period of five years in the newly constructed shopping complexes on nominal rents and it also made clear that after five years period, the concerned institutions will collect rents at market rate from the rehabilitated persons. In this case, though there was a specific assertion by the petitioners about their contribution, there is no material to show that the tenants

¶29

have contributed for construction of shopping complexes. Further, considering the request of petitioners for improving the existing shops, will not confer any right on them to continue in occupation by paying rents at nominal rates. It is to be noticed that since 1999, the shops were in occupation of the petitioners and for the last more than 10 years, they are in occupation by paying nominal rent of Rs.310/-. It is also evident from the counter that among the petitioners, there are also defaulters who have not paid even the said nominal rent to the 3^rd respondentGrampanchayat. In any event, the petitioners, having continued in possession of shops on nominal rent for nearly more than 10 years, have no legal right to continue in possession without paying market rents. Although it is contended by Sri T.S.Anand that the respondents should have allowed the petitioners to continue in possession by fixing rents as per the norms notified by the R & B Department for Government buildings, as the complex belongs to the 3^rd respondent-Grampanchayat, the norms notified by the R & B Department cannot be applied to the shops in question. It is well settled that if public larges are to be distributed, the same has to be done by giving equal opportunity to the persons who are entitled to bid in the auction for grant of leases by the 3^rd respondentGrampanchayat. As the petitioners are existing tenants, they are given choice to continue in possession by

¶30

offering the rents matching with the highest bidders, even as per the orders passed by the Collector, but at the same time, they cannot squat on the property by paying meager rent of Rs.310/-.

¶31

The judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners would not render any assistance in support of their case, having regard to the facts in the present cases. In the absence of any material to show that the shopping complexes are constructed only for the purpose of accommodating the petitioners who are evicted from the road margins permanently, they cannot claim the benefit of doctrine of equitable estoppel or the legitimate expectation, as pleaded by the petitioners in the present writ petitions. Both the judgments referred above, will not render any assistance in support of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners in the present cases and as the petitioners have failed to produce any material to show that they made investments either in the form of cash or labour for the purpose of construction of shopping complexes, I do not find any illegality either in the order passed by the District Collector in pursuance of the earlier directions of this Court or the consequential notice issued by the 3^rd respondentGrampanchayat.

¶32

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. However,

¶33

it is made clear that if the petitioners/tenants come forward by offering rents and other deposits matching with the offers made by the highest bidders, this will not preclude the respondents from considering their cases for grant of leases with usual terms and conditions. No order as to costs.

¶34

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶35

20^th July 2012

¶36

ajr

¶37

[1] 1992 (3) ALT 551 (DB)

¶38

[2] 1995 (3) ALT 228 (FB)

Doddi Achi Babu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doddi Achi Babu v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri N.Jagadeesh, Vs Uco Bank

M.Chennakesvulu Anantpaur Dist Vs Thge Pre Officer Indus Trib Hydand 2ORS

All India (Yerukula) Ekalavya Seva Samithi, Vs District Collector

Mulam Aravalu, Vs The District Collector

M/s Sri Subramanyam Auto Electrical works Vs The Government of A.P

G. Santosh, Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.