WP/32240/2013 of Manga Komaraiah, Vs The Govt. of A.P on 30 December 2013

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declarethe action of the respondents in not allotting house/flat in theWeaker Sections Housing flats being constructed underRGK/JNNURM Scheme, situated at plot No.1-3-69/1,Unnikota, Kavadiguda, as illegal and arbitrary.

Petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. They areresidents of Unnikota, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, forming partof T.S.Nos.5/9, 6/1, 6/2, and 6/4, Block-M, Ward No.75(converted to Sy.Nos.193, 197, 228 and 232 of Bakaramvillage). By notification dated 11-9-2009, respondent No.4declared the said area as a slum under Section 3(2) of theA.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956. The respondents have developed the area in occupation ofthe slum dwellers. It is the pleaded case of the petitionersthat they were also displaced along with other slum dwellersfor the purpose of construction of flats for eventualallotment. That on the representation of the petitioners,respondent No.2 called for a report from respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 submitted a report vide letter No.A/26028/2011, dated 2-1-2012 to respondent No.2based on the enquiry report of the Special RevenueInspector. In his report, respondent No.3 has stated asunder :

“I invite kind attention to the subject andreferences above cited and submit that vide ref. 2[nd]cited this office Spl. R.I. had submitted the enquiryreport in respect of Sri M. Komaraiah, PhysicallyHandicapped R/o. Kavadiguda, Hyderabad requestfor House site patta in weaker section housingScheme (WAMBAY), situated Unnikota, Kavadigudaand it is revealed that the applicant is R/o. Unnikota,Kavadiguda and he is Physically Handicapped andhe is residing in Unnikota slum from last 20 years andhaving white ration card and Electricity bill of the saidUnnikota premises as proof.

Further it is to inform that applicant brother gotpossession certificate in Unnikota and both are livingseparately and also having separate ration card.As such the applicant Sri M. Komaraiah comesunder below poverty line and he is eligible forHousing scheme and his case may be considered.”

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the saidreport and their further representation to respondent No.1 on10-5-2013, flat has not been allotted to them.

Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit wherein it isinter alia admitted that the slum of Unnikota locality ofKavadiguda was removed/vacated after enumeration of thedetails of the slum inhabitants to facilitate construction ofnew weaker sections’ flats under the RGK/JNNURMHousing scheme; that the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has proposed construction of 496 flatsin G+3 pattern and possession certificates were issued tothe eligible beneficiaries; that during the enumeration of thesitting inhabitants of Unnikota slum, the names of thepetitioners were not found in Socio-Economic Survey (SES)list and that therefore their names were not entered in the listof the sitting beneficiaries. It is further averred that thegrievance petition of the petitioners was enquired into andthe petitioners were found eligible for allotment of flat atUnnikota locality and that accordingly a proposal was sentto respondent No.2 for such allotment. It is further averredthat as per the instructions of respondent No.3, a notice waspublished along with the list of 589 SES beneficiaries on

29-6-2012 calling for objections and that severalobjections were received to the said notice and that anothernotice was published on 13-7-2012 along with a list ofpersons against whom objections were received to provetheir eligibility, but the petitioners have not submitted theirobjections to the SES list.

Having regard to the admission contained in thecounter affidavit about the eligibility of the petitioners forallotment of a flat, this Court has summoned respondentNos.3 and 5. Today, they have appeared in the Court. Thelearned Assistant Government Pleader representing themsubmitted that as against 496 flats sanctioned, 464 flatswere constructed and after excluding the ineligible persons, a list containing 458 beneficiaries was finalised. He hasfurther submitted that 35 persons who are found ineligiblehave filed a Writ Petition in this Court questioning deletion oftheir names from the SES list and that in the event of theirsucceeding in the said Writ Petition, they need to beaccommodated.

From the above noted facts, it is evident that thenumber of flats constructed is more than the number ofeligible beneficiaries. As on today, six vacant flats areavailable for allotment. Far from there being any disputeabout the eligibility of the petitioners for allotment of a flat,the only ground on which they are denied allotment is thattheir names are not in the SES list. Except pleading in thecounter affidavit that two notices were published calling forobjections to the SES beneficiaries list, the respondentsfailed to indicate as to the mode of calling for suchobjections. When there is no dispute about the fact ofeligibility of the petitioners for allotment of a flat, I do not findany justification in excluding their names from the SESbeneficiaries list in the first place. Admittedly, a person iseligible for allotment of a flat only if he was a resident of theslum and he was displaced. From the report dated 2-1-2012 submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, it ismanifest that the petitioners were residents of the Unnikotaslum for the last 20 years having White Ration Card andelectricity bill in proof of their residence and that they fall within the Below Poverty Line category for being eligibleunder the housing scheme. In the face of these admittedfacts, the exclusion of the petitioners’ names from the SESbeneficiaries list is not only illegal, but wholly iniquitous. Added to the fact that petitioner No.1 is not only eligible interms of the criteria fixed by the respondents for allotment ofa flat, he is also a Physically Handicapped person whorequires a more compassionate and humane considerationfor allotment of a flat. Admittedly, as against 464 numbers offlats constructed, the eligible beneficiaries as on today areonly 458. In the event of 35 ineligible persons succeedingin the Writ Petition which is stated to be pending before thisCourt, it shall be open to the respondents to accommodatesome of those persons elsewhere under the schemes whichare stated to be on-going at different places in the twin citiesof Hyderabad and Secunderabad.

Conclusion

For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition isallowed. The respondents are directed to allot a flat underthe RGK/JNNURM scheme at Unnikota, Kavadiguda to thepetitioners within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt of this order.

As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMPNo.40100/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.

________________________

Date : 30-12-2013

AM

Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy