WP/13086/2004 of Nagamani, Vs The Mandal Revenue Officer, on 27 December 2004

ORDER:

The petitioners, six in number, seek a writ of mandamus declaring the allegedaction of the respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Pamulapadu Mandal, KurnoolDistrict, in not allotting house sites to the beneficiaries as per the list approvedby the Assignment Committee and proposing to allot the house sites to otherthan the members placed in the list of beneficiaries, as arbitrary and illegal.

In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is stated that in pursuance ofa representation made by the petitioners and other economically backwardclass members requesting for allotment of house sites, the Governmentpurchased Ac.7.72 cents of land covered by Sy.Nos.571, 351 and 348 of IskalaVillage, under private negotiations and thereafter the said land was made into266 plots, out of which 38 plots have been reserved for public purpose. It isalso stated that a Committee consisting of the local M.L.A. as Convener andthe Mandal Revenue Officer, Panchayat Secretary, Sarpanch, M.P.T.C.Member of the village and Secretary of Podupulakshmi Sangham as members has been constituted for the purpose of selection of the eligible persons forallotment of the house sites and the said Committee has selected 223 eligiblepersons for allotment of house sites and approved the list of beneficiaries on06-01-2004. In pursuance thereof the house site pattas were also prepared inthe names of the selected persons and 60 members out of the list ofbeneficiaries were allotted the house sites on

Arguments

04-02-2004. At that stage, further proceedings were stopped, in view of theelections proposed to the Parliament and Legislative Assembly. After electionswere over, the petitioners, who are among the beneficiaries as per the listapproved, approached the respondent requesting for allotment of house sites.However, the respondent on one pretext or other has been postponing theallotment of the house sites. The petitioners reliably understand that at theinstance of the political leaders of the village, belonging to the ruling party, therespondent is contemplating to allot the house sites to the persons whosenames are not included in the list of beneficiaries in the approved list. Hence,this writ petition, seeking a declaration that the said action of the respondent isarbitrary and illegal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners as well as othermembers whose names are included in the list belong to economicallybackward class and their names were included in the approved list by theAssignment Committee after being satisfied as to their eligibility for allotment ofhouse sites. He contends that since the land was acquired by the Governmentat the instance of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons, and theirnames were also included in the approved list of beneficiaries, the respondentought to have allotted the house sites to all the beneficiaries and any deviationfrom the approved list of the beneficiaries is arbitrary and illegal.

The respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, filed a counter affidavit stating that alay out plan was prepared with 266 plots by earmarking 38 plots for communalpurpose. The Secretary of Iskala Village prepared the list of 223 beneficiariesfor allotment of house site pattas. However the Assignment Committee did notapprove the list of beneficiaries. It is also stated that though pattas wereprepared on 03-02-2004 for distribution in “KOTIVARAALU” Programme on 04- 02-2004 at Atmakur town, the pattas could not be distributed on that daysubsequently 60 pattas were distributed, during which, some villagers raisedobjections stating that ineligible persons are included in the list of beneficiariesand requested to re-enquire into the matter. Meanwhile, since the electionsintervened, the issuance of pattas was stopped for sometime. Thereafter on anenquiry into the objections raised with regard to the eligibility of the personsincluded in the list of beneficiaries, 83 persons out of 223 including thepetitioners herein were found to be ineligible. Since the petitioners are havingpucca houses in the Iskala Village, they were found to be ineligible forassignment. The allegation made by the petitioners that at the instance of therival political group the respondent has not granted the pattas to the petitionershas been categoricallydenied and it is stated that the W.P. is misconceivedand liable to be dismissed.

From the pleadings of the respective parties as noted above it is clear thatthough the names of the petitioners were included in the list of beneficiaries,subsequently their names along with some others have been deleted on theground that they are ineligible for assignment. Though in the counter affidavitfiled by the respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, it is stated that on throughenquiry it is found that the petitioners have pucca houses in the village and thusthey are found to be ineligible for assignment, it is not in dispute that thepetitioners were not given any opportunity to rebut the allegations beforeconcluding that they are not eligible for assignment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court a list ofbeneficiaries which includes the names of the six petitioners herein and statesthat the said list has been actually approved by the members of the AssignmentCommittee and therefore, it is not open to the Mandal Revenue Officer to deletethe names of the petitioners from the said list without affording any opportunityto the petitioners.

Having regard to the nature of controversy involved and particularly keeping inview of the fact that the names of the petitioners were admittedly figured in thelist of beneficiaries initially prepared and subsequently their names were deleted without notice to them, I am of the view that the matter requiresconsideration afresh after affording due opportunity to the petitioners to explainthe allegation that they are not eligible for assignment.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the DistrictCollector, Kurnool, to enquire into the matter either by himself or by deputingsome other responsible officer and to ensure that the list of beneficiaries hasbeen prepared in accordance with the scheme under which the house siteswere proposed to be assigned in Iskala Village. Such enquiry shall becompleted as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order after affording due opportunity tothe petitioners herein to explain the allegation that they are not eligible forassignment. Till such exercise is completed, the respondent shall not make anyallotment of the house sites in Iskala Village.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

Dated: 27[th] December, 2004

LSK

______________

G. ROHINI, J

To

1. The Mandal Revenue Officer,

Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District.

2. Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (O.U.T.)

3. Two C.D. copies.