Allowed

Nagula Yugandhar v. The state of Andhra Pradesh rep.by the Principal Secretary

Telangana HC19 Dec 2013WP/37174/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed to set aside memos rejecting applications for regularisation of plots. The Court held that under G.O.Ms.No.747, the District Level Screening Committee is recommendatory only, and the State Government is the final decision-making authority. The memos were declared void.

What did the court decide?

The impugned memos were declared void. The District Level Screening Committee was directed to forward the applications to the State Government within two weeks for disposal within two months.

Nagula Yugandhar Vs The state of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.37174 of 2013

¶3

Date:19.12.2013

¶4

Between: Nagula Yugandhar, S/o Laxmaiah and ten others.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And:

¶7

The Govt of AP, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad and eight others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Kumara Swamy Naidu

¶10

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 & 9: AGP for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside memos in Rc.No.A4/565/2012, dated 03.09.2013, of respondent No.5, whereby he has informed the petitioners that the District Level Screening Committee has rejected their applications for regularisation of the plots in their occupation.

¶13

The main ground on which the petitioners have challenged the said memos is that under G.O.Ms.No.747, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 18.06.2008, the State Government is the competent authority to consider the applications for regularisation and the District Level Screening Committee is only a recommendatory body.

¶14

The above-noted ground raised by the petitioners stands fortified by the last paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.06.2008, which reads as under:

¶15

“The Government shall be competent to refuse or reject any case of allotment of excess land, even though it otherwise satisfies all the conditions prescribed in this order, if such allotment of excess land with or without structures thereon is not in public interest or if such land is required for a public purpose. The decision of the Government in this regard shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court of law. In cases, where allotment is refused or rejected, the compensation amounts paid along with application shall be refunded without any interest to the applicant.”

¶16

In the light of the above reproduced paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.747, I find merit in the plea of the petitioners that the District Level Screening Committee is only entitled to submit its report and it is the State Government, which is the decision making authority, that will decide as to whether the applicants are entitled for regularisation of the plots in their occupation or not.

¶17

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) has not contradicted this position.

¶18

In the above view of the matter, the decision of the District Level Screening Committee rejecting the petitioners’ applications for regularisation and consequential impugned memos cannot be sustained and they are, accordingly, declared as void. The District Level Screening Committee is directed to place the applications of the petitioners along with its report before the State Government within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the State Government is directed to dispose of the petitioners’

¶19

applications within a period of two months thereafter.

¶20

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed subject to the extent indicated above.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.46260 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 19^th December, 2013 DR

Nagula Yugandhar v. The state of Andhra Pradesh rep.by the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagula Yugandhar v. The state of Andhra Pradesh rep.by the Principal Secretary

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

Yenuganti Sivaramaiah Vs The Superintendent of Police

K.Chinnapa Reddy Vs Sri. T. Ajay Kumar

Meghana Travels, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh.

M/s. Sri Ramagiri Constructions Private Limited Vs M/s. Galaxy Enterprises

G. Satyanarayana Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Srinivas Vs The Regional Transport Officer, Mahaboobnagar.