Disposed

Polepaka Venkatamma v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC1 Jul 2021WP/12874/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by petitioner belonging to SC Madiga community seeking relief regarding non-allotment of house plot after land acquisition. Petition disposed at stage of admission directing District Collector to examine merits of claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to examine the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding allotment, acquisition, and eligibility for two bedroom house.

Polepaka Venkatamma Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^{TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P, NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12874OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Polepaka Venkatamma, W/o. Late Sailu, Aged^{about 46 years,O_cc:Labour,} RJo H.No.28-267, Sunday Nagar, tt/iryalaguda^{Town, NalgondaDistrict,} Telangana State-508207.

¶9

...'ET'TI.NER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department'} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The District C6llector, Oio. Collectorate,^{NalgondaDistrict.}

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer,^{O/o. RDO Office, lr/iryalaguda Town,Nalgonda} District.

¶14

The Tahsildar, O/o. Tahsildar Office,^{l,4iryalagudaTown, NalgondaDistrict'} 5. The Executive Engineer, Telangana^{Slate Housing Corporation, Nalgonda Town} and District.

¶15

The Divisional Engineer, Telangana^{State Housing Corporation,l,4iryalaguda} Town and Nalgonda District.

¶16

The Assistant Engineer, Telangana^{State Housing Corporation,Miryalaguda} Town and Nalgonda District.

¶17

...RESPoNDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedto} issue a writ order or direction^{more particularlyone in the nature of writ of} lvlandamus, by declaring the^{Respondents No.2 to 7 in re-allotting the open plot as} well as non-granting the double^{bedroomhouse in lndirammacolonywhichis} situated at I/iryalaguda^{Town, Nalgonda District basing on the representationof the} petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and against the^{principlesof natural justice and violative} of Article 14, 19 and 21 of^{constitutionof lndia and consequentlydirect the} Respondents No.3 and 4 to^{re-allot the open plot at another place to me as well as} direct the Respondents No.5^{to 7 to grant the double bedroom housein lndiramma} colony which is situated at^{Miryalaguda Town,NalgondaDistrict basingon the} representation of the^petitioner.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under section^'1 51^{CPC prayingthatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court maybe pleased to directthe} Respondents No. 3 and^{4 to re-allot the open plot at another place to me as wellas} direct the Respondents No.5^{to 7 to grant the double bedroom housein lndiramma} colony which is situated at^{Miryalaguda Town,NalgondaDistrict basingon the} representation of the^petitioner.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents:^{AGP FORREVENUE}

¶23

The Court at the stage^{of admissionmade the following:ORDER}

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶28

UIRIT PETITI ON No.12 874 of 2O2l

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed praying to grant following relief:

¶31

"... to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ol Mandamus, by declaring the Respondent Nos.2 to 7.in re-alloting the open plot as well as non-granting the double bedroom house in lndiramma colony which ii situated at Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District basing on the representation oI the petitioner. as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative oI Artiile 14. 19 and 2I of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No. 3 &4 to re-allot the open ploaat another place to me.as rvell as direct the Respondent No.S to Z to grant the double bedroom house in tndiramma Colony which is situated at Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District basing on the representation of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders.. "

¶32

Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue.

¶33

According to petitioner, she belongs to SC Madiga community and on 23.02.2013, she was allotted house plot, However, the Tahsildar-4th Respondent initiated land acquisition proceedings in Sy.No. I of Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District, cancelling the house pattas granted to several people. petitioner alleges that though alternative house plots were given to several other persons, petitioner was not allotted any house patta, causing hardship and suffering to her. petitioner claims to have made several representations to the District Collector-2nd Respondent, to the Tahsildar and alleging inaction, this writ perition is filed.

¶34

A copy of the representation made to the District Collector on lo -o2.2o2o is filed ar^page No.15. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the said representation was sent to the District Collector and other revenue authorities by way of registered post with acknowledgment due on Ol.06.202l.

¶35

In view^{of the fact that a representationwas alreadymade} without^{enteringinto merits of the case' the Writ Petitionis} disposed^{of, directing the DistrictCollector' to examinethe meritof} the claim^{of petitioner on the aspectof earlier allotment of house} site^{patta, acquisidonof the said patta for public purposeand} allotment^{of house site pattas elsewhereto similarlysituated} persons,^{depriving the same to the petitioner' If these facts are true} and^{petitioner is found to be otherwiseeligible for allotment of} house site^{patta and ifthe Government policyenablessuch} allotment,^{the request of petitioner may be considered' On the} contrary,^{if the DistrictCollector is not satisiiedwith the claim of} and/or^{the Governmentpolicy do not envisageallotment}

¶36

petitioner of house site^{pattas, a reply may be given to the petitioner'} reasons^{in support of the decision ln the process ol}

¶37

asslgnlng u,hcther

¶38

consideration,^{theDistrictCollector may also examlne} petitioner^{is entitled to apply for allotment of two bedroomhouses} constructed^{for weaker sections and whether petitioner's claim can} be considered^{for such allotment'A decisionto this effect shall also} Pending^{miscellaneous}

¶39

be^{communicatedtothe Petitioner'}

¶40

petitions,^{if anY , shall stand ciosed'}

¶41

,TRUE^COPY//

¶42

R;lilll?il$["Ht[ ,\L,,

¶43

SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

To 1 2 'J:JIT.?j?:"3?il::i]r?":Jiiirl[1ffi'}#31,,,^{j",',",,",,",*} 3 ti,i," cts to^{GP for Revenu} Hvderabad [OUTI 4. Two CD CoPies 5 Onr SPare^CoPY CH illl^{</sup> R)$x}

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10712021

ORDER

W.P.No.12874 o12021

1 e TA r€ t
e
Joo 13 Jutz0?l 8
*
t( ot: .! ,>i'I

¶50

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS

Polepaka Venkatamma v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Polepaka Venkatamma v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P .Shankar and 9 others Vs The state of Telangana

Konuru Radha Krishna Vs the State of Telangana

Karam Venkaesh and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Peesari Srikanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Vallabhaneni Vamsi Mohan Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Sathar and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others