Allowed

Mr. K. Mahenderkar v. Principal Secretary to Govt. (Housing Development)

Telangana HC19 Jun 2013WP/14340/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging Government Orders imposing charges against an Assistant Engineer for discrepancies in reporting encroached land extents. Court found charges unproven due to lack of evidence regarding encroachment dates.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings issued in G.O.Ms. No.86 dated 28.06.1999 and confirmed in appeal vide G.O.Rt. No.21 dated 27.01.2000 set aside and Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Mr. K. Mahenderkar Vs Principal Secretary… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14340 OF 2000

¶3

Date: 19-06-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Mr. K. Mahenderkar. - - - Petitioner. And The Principal Secretary to Government, (Housing Development) Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. - - - Respondents.

¶6

This Court made the following :

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14340 OF 2000

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner challenging the G.O.Ms. No.86, Housing (HB-I) Department, dated 28.06.1999, which was confirmed in Appeal vide G.O.Rt. No.21, Housing (HB-I) Department, dated 27.01.2000, and quash the same.

¶10

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for General Administration, appearing for Respondent No.1, and Sri A.K. Jayapraksh Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer in the office of the first respondent in the year 1982. As an Assistant Engineer, it is his duty to identify stray pieces of land belonging to the Housing Board, which are under encroachment, inspect such lands and report to the higher authorities. The petitioner, in discharge of his official duties, found that 98.22 Sq. yards was in the possession of Smt. R. Vijaya and 95.33 Sq. yards was in the possession of Sri Chakravarthy at Baghlingampally, Hyderabad and accordingly recommended to sell those pieces of land to those persons on the ground that the land encroached by each of them was less than 100 Sq. yards. Accordingly, sale deeds were executed in favour of those persons on 31.12.1994. It appears that in the year 1997, Sri Chakravarthy, submitted a representation, which was received by the Assistant Estate Officer on 15.09.1997, contending that 95.00 Sq. Yards of land has been encroached by him and he is ready to pay the market value for the same. Similarly, Ravinder Reddy submitted a representation on 12.09.1997 with a request to sell the encroached land of 95.33 Sq. yards of land, as the

¶12

same is less than 100 Sq. yards. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, wherein the following charges were framed against him :

¶13

“Charge (a) : On the instructions of his superior, when he measured the encroached site of Sri Ravinder Reddy on 11.07.1994, it was 90.44 Sq. yards and its cost was estimated at Rs.1,572/- per Sq. yard. He reported that he found a shed and recommended for sale of the land. But when he was again directed to measure the said land on 24.04.1996, it was 169.44 Sq. yards. On the second occasion there was no shed on the land.

¶14

Charge (b) : That on the instructions of his superior when he measured the encroached site of Sri Chakravarthy and Smt. Vijaya on 23.09.1994, it was 98.22 Sq. yards. He reported that he found a shed on the site and recommended for sale fo the land. But when he again measured the said land it was 178.24 Sq. yards and there was no shed but there was a compound wall. In spite of the above discrepancies and rule position, Sri Mahenderkar, has not suggested for cancellation of regularization of the encroachment.”

¶15

In reply to the above charges, the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation stating that as on the date when he submitted his report, Ravinder Reddy was in possession of 90.44 Sq. yards only and accordingly he recommended for regularization. It is also his case that his higher officials have also measured the land and found the same encroachment as on the date of submitting his report. His further case is that, subsequently, several developments have taken place and A.P. Housing Board constructed a compound wall and since wide land is vacant, Ravinder Reddy constructed the wall and encroached the additional land.

¶16

With reference to charge No.2, his case is that as on the date of his inspection on 23.09.1994, he found a shed on the site and Chakravarthi and R. Vijaya were in possession of 98.22 Sq. yards. Accordingly, he recommended for regularisation. Further, it is clear from his explanation that higher officials have also measured the land

¶17

and found his report to be true and correct. His main case appears to be that the subsequent enquiry conducted by the other officials revealed that though a shed was there but it was constructed by the contractor and not by Chakravarthy and Smt. R. Vijaya. The Enquiry Officer after completion of his enquiry found that charge No.1 was not proved and charge No.2 was proved against the petitioner.

¶18

From a perusal of G.O.Rt. No.29, dated 04.02.1999, it is clear that Chakravarthi was working as a watchman and living in the shed constructed by the contractor, who constructed Baghlingampally Colony. Therefore, the contractor should have been considered as encroacher but not Chakravarthi. The charge No.2 levelled against the petitioner is that when the land was again measured it was found that there was no shed, but the contents of Para 10 (4) of G.O.Ms. No.86, dated 28.06.1999 is same. The sum and substance of the charges levelled against the petitioner is that though he reported that Ravinder Reddy has encroached 90.44 Sq. yards but subsequently the said Ravinder Reddy was found in possession of 169.44 Sq. yards and as far as the second charge is concerned, the petitioner reported that Chakravarthi and R. Vijaya had encroached 98.22 Sq. yards but subsequently they were found to be in possession of 178.24 Sq. yards and that there was no shed but there was only a compound wall. However, the discussion made in G.O.Rt. No.29, dated 04.02.1999 reveal that the Executive Engineer South Division and Deputy Executive Engineer reported that there was no encroachment at all and that the charges levelled against the petitioner seem different from the matter discussed in G.O.Ms. No.86, dated 28.06.1999. Entirely new allegations have been made against the petitioner in the G.O.Ms. No.86, dated 28.06.1999. It is not in dispute that there is no loss to the A.P. Housing Board in selling the lands to Smt. R. Vijaya and Ravinder Reddy, even as per the contents of the said G.O.

¶19

The main question to be considered in this writ petition is

¶20

whether Ravinder Reddy and Smt. R. Vijaya encroached the entire extents of the land i.e. 169.44 and 174.24 Sq. yards as on the date of submission of the report by the petitioner on 11.07.1994 or subsequent to that?

¶21

It is true that on 11.07.1994, the petitioner initially recommended that Ravinder Reddy had encroached only 90.44 Sq. yards and Chakravarthi and Vijaya had encroached only 98.22 Sq. yards. Whether those persons encroached the remaining part of the land at a subsequent stage particularly after the construction of the compound wall or as on the date of submission of report by the petitioner cannot be verified at this stage. There is no satisfactory evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer or subsequently before the Government to say that the remaining part of the land was in possession of Ravinder Reddy and Chakravarthi as on the date of submission of the report by the petitioner. Of course, a small portion of the land, which could not be used for any purpose nor could be alienated to any other person, was left between the compound wall and between the land sold to Ravinder Reddy and to above two persons.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved; therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be set-aside.

¶23

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings issued in G.O.Ms. No.86, Housing (HB-I) Department, dated 28.06.1999, confirmed in appeal vide G.O.Rt. No.21, Housing (HB-I) Department, dated 27.01.2000.

¶24

As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶25

B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 19-06-2013. Dsh.

¶26

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶27

208

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.14340 OF 2000

¶29

June 19, 2013