IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.22110 of 2013 BETWEEN Gali Lodagaiah and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. L. RAVICHANDER For MR. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed by ten petitioners, who claim that they have been assigned an extent of 3 cents of land towards house sites in Sy.No.1779 of Chennampalle village, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District in the year 1994. It is alleged that each assignee is in possession of his respective plot. However, the cause of action for moving the present writ petition appears to be the proposal of the Revenue Department, allegedly, to reduce the plot size of each assignee from 3 cents to 2 cents. It is stated that the revenue authorities visited the site on 13.07.2013 and took measurement and based on the enquiry of the petitioners with the third respondent, the present writ petition is filed alleging that the layout of the allotted plots to the petitioners is proposed to be revised by reducing the plot size from 3 cents to 2 cents in order to grant assignment to other eligible allottees. It is in this background that the petitioners seek a Mandamus restraining respondents 2 and 3 from reducing the size of the plots from 3 cents to 2 cents already assigned to the petitioners.
3. The Tahsildar has filed a counter affidavit, firstly, asserting that the pattas claimed by the petitioners contain discrepancy and on verification of record, the Tahsildar entertained a doubt about the genuineness of the said pattas. In the further paras, it is stated that on finding that the majority of the plots are vacant and unutilized for the purpose assigned, a proposal had emanated from the Tahsildar and Revenue Divisional Officer to reduce the plot size from 3 cents to 2 cents and the said proposal is submitted to the District Collector for his consideration and appropriate decision. Para 3 of the counter affidavit, being relevant, is extracted hereunder:
“3. In reply to para No.4 of the affdaivt, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the respondents 2 and 3 are making efforts to allot the house site plots in the same survey number duly reducing the size of plot from 3 cents to 2 cents is correct. The beneficiaries as stated by the petitioners are not village assistants, they are Village Revenue Assistants (earlier they are called Village Servants) and are part time employees in Revenue Department.
On receipt of the representation from the Village Servants, the Mandal Surveyor found that 36 plots measuring each 0.03 cents are vacant in S.No.1779 of Chennampalli village, as there is a provision made by the Government to the Village Servants for grant of house sites, the Mandal Surveyor who inspected the vacant plots in the said survey number has reported on 27.10.2011 that the plot Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 73, 74, 75., 76, 77, 78, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94 totalling 36 plots of 0.03 cents each are vacant and if they can reduce to 0.02 cents each, 50 persons can be provided with house sites. In view of the ban imposed by the Government for grant of house sites within Municipal area limits vide G.O.Ms.No.1493 dated 01.12.2007, the proposals were submitted to the District Collector, Kadapa through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet to accord permission for grant of house sites to the Village Revenue Assistants (Village Servants) vide this office Ref.A/785/2011 dated 6.1.2012 and 25.9.2012 and in turn the Sub Collector, Rajampet has submitted the proposals to the District Collector, Kadapa vide her Ref. C/432/2013 dated 16.3.2013 and the permission from the District Collector is still awaited. As submitted supra the house site pattas granted to the petitioners are not genuine and they are fake as per the verification of this office records, hence the contents in this para needs no consideration.”
4. It is evident from the para, extracted above, that though the proposal to that effect has been made by the RDO and Sub-Collector, Rajampet, the same is awaiting consideration of the District Collector. Since no such decision is taken by the District Collector, in my view, the entertainment of the writ petition, at this stage, is highly premature.
In view of that, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Collector, second respondent, to consider the proposals said to have been submitted, as stated in the para, referred to above and to take appropriate decision in the matter. However, if any decision adverse to the petitioners is proposed to be made, the District Collector shall issue notice to the petitioners, hear them and thereafter, pass appropriate orders. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J July 8, 2014 DSK