WP/31996/2010 of Displaced Ryoths Association (Regd. No. 230 /2000) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 December 2011

O R D E R:

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the housinggrant to nearly 600 Project Affected Families under SPVBR-TeluguGanga Project, who are below the poverty line, only on the ground thattheir houses were not covered with pucca concrete roof, as illegal andarbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the saidhousing grant to those families, who were found with constructedhouses not covered with pucca concrete roof, without reference to thesaid condition provided the value of their constructed houses is morethan Rs.25,000/- on par with National Rehabilitation and ResettlementPolicy-2007 or as the last resort to re-survey the stage of theconstruction of houses of the remaining about 600 project affectedfamilies and to release the said amount.

2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition thatthe petitioner Association represents all the displaced persons in sixvillages submerged under the SPVB Reservoir under the TeluguGanga Project, Kadapa District. The Central Government has giventhe environmental clearance to State Government subject to thecondition of preparing a comprehensive Rehabilitation Master Plan tobring the project affected persons to the same and better level than thetime before the displacement. Accordingly, the State Governmentconstituted a rehabilitation cell to prepare the Rehabilitation MasterPlan (for short, ‘R.M.P.’). The Rehabilitation Cell constituted underG.O.Ms.No.30, dated 15.02.1994, prepared an abstract of therehabilitation master plan and arrived at an outlay of an amount ofRs.17.18 crores towards various measures incorporated in the R.M.P.The R.M.P. was prepared in the year 1992 whereas the members of the petitioner Association were displaced from their habitations asearly as 1987-88 and the abstract prepared by the rehabilitation cellwas sent to the Central Government during the year 1996 and thesame was accepted by the Central Government and G.O.Ms.No.58,dated 01.06.1996, was issued sanctioning the total outlay of Rs.17.18crores for the implementation of the said plan. When the respondentshave not taken up the implementation of the R.M.P. and by taking upmeasures enumerated in the R.M.P. as per G.O.Ms.No.324, dated01.12.1988, the petitioner Association had to approach this Court onnumber of occasions, but the State Government has not implementedthe same. So far as integrating anti poverty alleviation programmesinto the R.M.P. efforts, no action was taken. The petitioner associationmade number of representations, but no further progress was madeand hence, it filed W.P.No.15204 of 2006 to direct the respondents toextend the various state Government Anti Poverty AlleviationProgrammes wherein interim direction was granted to the respondentsto extend the anti poverty alleviation programmes. When therespondents did not implement the schemes, the petitioner Associationfiled C.C.No.568 of 2008 and the same was closed directing therespondents to consider for releasing the amounts, as per law, withintwo months from the date of receipt of that order. The displacedfamilies eligible against the said benefit have represented to releasethe amount in terms of scheme, but the respondents have not releasedthe same and hence, it filed second contempt case No.1430 of 2008and the same was closed observing that only the displaced personswith houses constructed pucca roof are eligible for grant under anti-poverty alleviation scheme and that persons, who do not possess thehouse with pucca roof, as required under the scheme, are not eligible,but it was made clear that it would not preclude the respondents fromconsidering the cases of other people those who are found to be withinpoverty line and do not possess the houses with pucca roofing. Thecondition of possession of house with pucca roofing for eligibility to

grant Rs.25,000/- under the Anti Poverty Alleviation Scheme isarbitrary. The petitioner Association made representations on16.05.2010 and 11.10.2010 to conduct re-enquiry as to the status ofthe houses of the said 600 project affected persons and furthersubmitted that they have also laid the concrete roof for entitlement tothe benefit of Rs.25,000/- cash grant under the anti-poverty alleviationscheme. The other left out nearly 600 project affected families havealso complied with the conditions of the scheme i.e., possessing puccaroofed houses as on today and they are also entitled as PAPs andpersons below the poverty line to get the benefit of one time grant inview of construction of house and in which case there is no need toconduct any enquiry by the respondents as to the status of the housefor granting the said benefit. The respondents neither conducted re-enquiry nor allowed the grant without any enquiry. The first enquiryspeaks that nearly 600 people are not given the said benefit only onthe ground that they were not covered under any scheme though theyhave constructed some houses with AC sheet or thatched houses andthe value of the said buildings in most of the cases is more thanRs.1.00 lakh. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Association stated that thepetitioner Association represents the displaced persons under theS.P.V.B. Reservoir under the Telugu Ganga Project, Kadapa Districtand as per G.O.Ms.No.21, Housing (RH.A1) Department, dated02.07.2011, and G.O.Rt.No.153 Irrigation & CAD (Projects Wing-L.A.IV-R&R.II) Department, dated 07.03.2007, the case of thepetitioner Association has to be considered by respondent Nos.1 and2.

4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleaderappearing for respondent No.2 contended that appropriate decisionwould be taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 after considering the caseof the petitioner Association, as per the said G.Os.

5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner Associationrepresents the displaced persons under the S.P.V.B. Reservoir underthe Telugu Ganga Project, Kadapa District. Whether the petitionerAssociation is entitled for the housing grant in terms of G.O.Ms.No.21,Housing (RH.A1) Department, dated 02.07.2011, and G.O.Rt.No.153Irrigation & CAD (Projects Wing-L.A.IV-R&R.II) Department, dated07.03.2007 or not, has to be considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 forwhich petitioner Association is said to have given a representation torespondent Nos.1 and 2 prior to passing of these G.Os. Therefore, thepetitioner Association is at liberty to give fresh representation torespondent Nos.1 and 2 and after receipt of the said representation,respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to take appropriate decision interms of the said two G.Os.

6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

30[th] December, 2011.Note:- Furnish CC within three days. B/o AMD

_______________

K.C.BHANU, J

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

AMD

WRIT PETITION NO.31996 OF 2010

Date:30.12.2011