Disposed

Punem Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Dec 2024WP/35983/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning the Double Bedroom House Scheme for SC/ST beneficiaries. The court held that since statutory Grama Sabha approval was pending for the petitioners' names, instead of immediate allotment, the petitioners were directed to make a representation to the Gram Panchayat to conduct the Grama Sabha. Upon approval, authorities must consider the cases with

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioners lodge a representation for Grama Sabha approval, after which the authorities must consider their allotment cases within three months.

Punem Pradeep Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAO} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENW THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR^REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO:35983 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Punem Pradeep Kumar, S/o.Benjman, Aged 47^{years, Caste ST (Koya) Occ.} Reporter, Fl/o. H No. 18-2-10, ASR Colony Bhadrachalam,^Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶10

Bachala Malleswara Rao, S/o. Bachala Rajaiah,^{,Aged 40 years, CasteST} (Koya) Occ. Coolie, Rl/o. H No. 9-2-94, Shanthinagar Colony Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District

¶11

Pathuloru Kavitha, W/o. Nagu, Aged 31^years, Caste^{ST (Koya), Occ. Coolie,} R/o. H No. 13-1-87, Revenue Colony, Bhadrachalam,^{Bhadradri Kothagudem} Diskict.

¶12

Pasupuleti Chamundeswari, D/o. Nageswar Rao, Aged^{3Q years,} -Occ.^coolie Ri/o. H No. 19-5-24, ASR Colny, Bhadrachalam Bhadradri^Kothagudem District

¶13

Sunnam Manjula, W/o. Ramakrishna, Aged 32^{years, Occ. housewifeRio.H} No. 13-4-24,' Ashoknagar Colony Bhadrachalam,^{BhadradriKothagudem} District

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

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

¶17

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Convenor^{of Double Bedroom} Scheme, District Level Committee Bhadradri^{KothagudemDistrict,} Kothagudem.

¶18

The Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem^District.

¶19

The Bhadrachamal Grampanchayat, Rep. by its^{PanchayatSecretary/} Executive Officer, Bhadrachalam, Bhadrad ri Kothagudem^District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed theiewith, the^{High Court may be}

¶22

-"------7

¶23

pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar in not allotting the double bed room houses to the petitioners basing on the proceedings Rc No. C112412O23, dated 05/06/2023 by showing the petitioners names in the said list Serial Nos. 80, 83, BB, 106, 1 19 keep on pending.the said list and without handing over the double bed room houses to the petitioners, prepared the new list by the 3rd respondent without showing the names of the petitioners allotted the said houses to some other persons wilhout informing the same to the petitioners by the 3rd respondent and without conducting the grama sabha and PESA Rules prepared the new list is highly illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of the Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to handover the double bed room houses to the petitioners immediately as per the final list prepared by the 3rd respondent vide Rc No. C112412023, dated 0510612023 in the interest of justice.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the respondents particularly 3rd respondent Tahsildar to handover the Double Bed Room Houses to the petitioners immediately basing on the approved Final Eligible Beneficiaries List vide proceedings Rc No. Cl124lZO23, daled 0510612023, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.V.KRISHNAMACHARY

¶27

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FORREVENUE

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI P. KISHORE RAO,

¶29

S.C. FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

¶32

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V. BHASI(AR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.35983 of 2o24

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

It is stated that the State Government has taken up^a progrErmme commonly called as Double Bed Room House Programme' to construct the houses and allot the same to^the persons, who belong to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Classes and Minority communities. It^{is further} stated that with laudable object the State Government,^after identifuing the open vacant government land, has taken up^the said programme on war footing basis for construction^{of double} bed room houses for allotment of the same to the eligible persons identified after conducting socio economic survey. It is further stated that the petitioners were enumerated in the list of eligible candidates at Sl.Nos.80, 83, 88, 106 and 119 for allotment of houses, prepared by respondent No.3 in^proceedings Rc.No.C/12412023, d.ated 05.06.2023. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after selecting them as bbneliciaries under the said scheme, the respondent authorities are^not allotting the houses constructed by the State Government^to them and said houses are kept idle and in view of not^properly

¶35

iL.

¶36

¶37

CVBR, J wp 35983 2024

¶38

maintaining the said houses there is every possibilities of the same shal1 not be useful in future for habitation

¶39

Considered the submissions made Sri P.V.Krishnamachary, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4 arld with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the adrnission stage.

¶40

Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that the Government, duly taking into r:onsideration of the policy, has taken decision to al1ot unoccupied vacant houses to the eligible persons under the scheme 'Indiramma []ouses'. It is further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.1O and 12, dated 15.10.2015 and 26. 11.2015, respectivety, the list of eligible beneliciaries shall be verified by the Tahsildar of the Mandal ald place it before the Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha and then Grama Sabha will verify the eligibility of beneficiar5r families and forward the list to the District Collector. I-earned Assistalt Government Pleader furttrer submits that insofar as the case of the petitioners, there was no approval of Grama Sabha and therefore even if their names have been enumerated in the list of beneficiaries, their cases would not be considered as there was no approval of the Grama Sabha. karned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the cases where

¶41

¶42

C'BR, J Wp 359E3 2024

¶43

the beneficiaries were not considered on the ground of approval was not granted by Gram Sabha, those cases would be considered as per the policy laid down by the Government from time to time and if the petitioners' names are approved by the Grama Sabha their cases would also be considered as per the policy laid down by the Government.

¶44

In view of the above submissions and since it is case of the petitioners that earlier their names were enumerated in the list of beneficiaries and as the said list was not approved by the Grama Sabha, for recommending their cases for sanction of houses, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of^justice would be met permitting the petitioners to make a representation before respondent No.4, duly enclosing the list of eligible persons for allotment of houses, to conduct Grama Sabha for approval of the list of eligible persons so as to enable the Government to consider their cases for a-llotment of the houses in terms of the policy of the Government. In the event of such application is being made, respondent No.4 is directed to place the same for approval of Grama Sabha and after approval of the names of the petitioners in the Grama Sabha, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the cases of the

I (

CVBR, J Wp]5983 2024

petitioners within a period of three (03) months from the date of

¶49

approval of the Grama Sabha

¶50

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶51

of. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel, the miscellaleous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

//TRUE COPYII

Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ^"'*"i.F;rr,Xi/

¶57

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶58

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Convenor of Double Bedroom Scheme, District Level Committee Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Kothagudem.

¶59

The Tahsildar, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶60

The Panchayat SecretaryJ Executive Officer, Bhadrachamal Grampanchayat, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶61

One CC to SRI P.V.KRISHNAMACHARY, Advocate IOPUCI

¶62

One CC to SRI P.KISHORE RAO, S.C. for Gram Panchayat [OPUC]

¶63

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶64

B. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

CVBR, J

DATED: 2311212024

ORDER

H E IJ 14
n 44.
p
') v
0 I Jl I'l 2offi
a
) ^*,//
-4"

¶74

WP.No.35983 of 2024

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶76

WITHOUT COSTS

¶77

Punem Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punem Pradeep Kumar v. The State of Telangana

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

Nagati Sudarshan Vs The State of Telangana

Pattabhi Rami Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Khaja Akram Ali Vs Sri Sajeed

Naliganti Benhar Vs The State of Telangana

Mantena Rajanna Vs The State of Telangana

Tej Inland Container Depot Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana