Telangana High Court
WP/38789/2013 of Jinuga Krishna Reddy Vs The state of A.P. on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.38789 OF 2013 Dated 31st December 2013 BETWEEN: 1. Jinuga Krishna Reddy and four others. …PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of A.P., rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38789 OF 2013
Dated 31st December 2013
BETWEEN:
1. Jinuga Krishna Reddy and four others.
…PETITIONERS
AND
1. The State of A.P., rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government,Revenue Department, Secretariat, A.P., Hyderabad and eight others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. Satyanarayana for Mr. G.KumaraSwamy Naidu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and 9: Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8:
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION NO.38789 OF 2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside memos inRc.No.A4/565/2012, dated 03.09.2013, of respondent No.5, wherebyhe has informed the petitioners that the District Level ScreeningCommittee has rejected their applications for regularisation of the plotsin their occupation.
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 competentauthority to consider the applications for regularisation and the DistrictLevel Screening Committee is only a recommendatory body.
The above-noted ground raised by the petitioners standsfortified by the last paragraph of G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18.06.2008,which reads as under:
“The Government shall be competent to refuse orreject any case of allotment of excess land, eventhough it otherwise satisfies all the conditionsprescribed in this order, if such allotment of excessland with or without structures thereon is not in publicinterest or if such land is required for a publicpurpose. The decision of the Government in thisregard shall be final and shall not be questioned inany Court of law. In cases, where allotment isrefused or rejected, the compensation amounts paidalong with application shall be refunded without anyinterest to the applicant.”
In the light of the above reproduced paragraph ofG.O.Ms.No.747, I find merit in the plea of the petitioners that the District LevelScreening Committee is only entitled to submit its report and it is theState Government, which is the decision making authority, that willdecide as to whether the applicants are entitled for regularisation of theplots in their occupation or not.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue(Assignments) has not contradicted this position.
In the above view of the matter, the decision of the District LevelScreening Committee rejecting the petitioners’ applications forregularisation and consequential impugned memos cannot besustained and they are, accordingly, declared as void. The DistrictLevel Screening Committee is directed to place the applications of thepetitioners along with its report before the State Government within aperiod 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’applications within a period of two months thereafter.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicatedabove.
As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WP.MP.No.48211 of2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
_____________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
31[st] December 2013RRB