Telangana High Court
WP/30731/2011 of Konduru Narasa Raju, Vs Govt. of A.P., Department of Home (Genl. (C)), on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.30731 OF 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and with their consent the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMARWRIT PETITION No.30731 OF 2011
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:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue and with their consent the writpetition is disposed of at the admission stage.
2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuanceof a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents inallotting house site to the petitioner as per his entitlement in termsof G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 30.05.2005 as arbitrary and illegal andconsequently, direct the respondents to allot a house site to thepetitioner in accordance with the above G.O.
3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writpetition show that the petitioner herein was enrolled into theMadras Regiment of Indian Army on 23.02.1971 as Sepoy in thetrade of Infantry Soldier (GD). He sustained war injury during theIndo-Pak War in December, 1971 and subsequently, he wasdischarged from service w.e.f. 25.06.1975 with War DisabilityPension and all consequential benefits. While things stood thus,Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.92, dated30.05.2005 extending the benefit of allotment of house site of 300square yards in rural and urban areas to the Ex-Servicemen, thosewho were disabled in action with enemy forces. Since thepetitioner was disabled, he made an application for allotment ofhouse site and made several subsequent representationsrequesting the authorities concerned to allot the house site. Their inaction led to filing of the writ petition.
4. By an order, dated 29.11.2011, this Court observed asunder:
“It is now stated in the counter affidavit filed by theDistrict Collector that 290 Square Yards of house site inSurvey No.130/2B of Karvetinagar Village of KarvetinagarMandal head-quarters has been identified; and house sitepatta will be issued following due procedure, and incompliance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.92 dated30.05.2005.
The petitioner is a disabled ex-service man havingsuffered injury in the year 1971 in Indo-Pak war. Morethan 40 years have elapsed since then, and more than 6years have elapsed since G.O.Ms.No.92 dated30.05.2005, was issued. The District Collector has nowidentified a plot. As to when the plot would bedemarcated, and handed over to the ex-service man is notclear from the counter affidavit. It is but appropriate thatthe District Collector files an additional affidavit giving thespecific time frame within which the plot would bedemarcated, and possession would be handed over to thepetitioner herein.”
5. Counter and Additional Counter came to be filed on behalf ofthe 2[nd] respondent. Additional Counter discloses that plot wasdemarcated and possession was handed over to the petitioner on16.12.2011 under proper acknowledgment. He also placed onrecord the site patta, sketch and acknowledgement.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though theadditional counter discloses that possession has been handedover to the petitioner, but the said land is a disputed one and notfree from encumbrance. But, however, learned Government Pleader for Revenue asserts that as per the averments in theadditional counter affidavit sworn by the District Collector, the plotwas handed over to the petitioner under proper acknowledgementand the same is free from any dispute.
7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthe plot is in dispute, he did not file any document showing thesame. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner it has beenstated that when he went to the plot on 16.12.2011, he receivedobjections from the DWCRA Women stating that the same belongsto them. But, the additional counter filed by the District Collectoron 24.12.2011 discloses that the plot was handed over to thepetitioner on 16.12.2011 under proper acknowledgement.
8. Having regard to the circumstances stated above, since theplot has already been demarcated and handed over to thepetitioner under proper acknowledgment, nothing survives foradjudication in the writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it opento the petitioner to avail the remedy in case any dispute ariseswith regard to ownership. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pendingin this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order asto costs.
Date:31.12.2015INL
_______________________
JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR