WP/5720/2008 of K. BUTCHI RAMULU, KHAMMAM DIST. Vs DIST. COLLECOTR, KHAMMAM AND 2 OTHERS on 29 December 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated [tl.o4.2OO7 ]of [the]No.HWPM/(RllLL-791o7 1361, third respondent in [rejecting ]the [claim ][of ][the ][petitioner ][for]providing employment under ['Land ][Loser Policy', ][as ][illegal,]arbitrary and contrary to the [policy ][laid ][down ][by ][the]Government in Memo No.813/ID/81-2, [Industries ][and]Commerce (ID) Department, dated [07.O7.1981 ][and]consequently to direct the respondents [to ][provide]employment to the [petitioner.]

Heard the learned counsel for the the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the for the [[petitioner, ]][[the]]

2. Heard the learned counsel for the the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the for the [[petitioner, ]][[the]]learned Standing Counsel for the third [respondent-Heavy]Water PlanManuguru and the learned counsel fort.respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. The contentions on behalf of the petitioner are thaton behalf of the petitioner are thatbehalf of the petitioner are thatof the petitioner are thatthe petitioner are thatare thatthatthe petitioner is the son-in-law of [late ]Sri [Madakam]Yerraiah and Sri Madakam [Yerraiah ][is ]the [original ][owner]of the land in Survey No.79 of Ammagaripalli [Village ]to [an]

The contentions on behalf of the petitioner are thaton behalf of the petitioner are thatbehalf of the petitioner are thatof the petitioner are thatthe petitioner are thatare thatthat

extent of Ac. 1.23 guntas and the said land was given to thepetitioner at the time of marriage. The same was acquiredby the Authorities for the purpose of construction of Hear,yWater Plant at Maluguru. Hence, the petitioner is entitledfor employment under [,Land ]Losers euota,. For thispurpose, the learned counsel has relied on the GovernmentMemo, dated 07.07. 1981. The relevant portion of the saidMemo reads as under:

"for each family displaced by the acquisition of land,at least one member of the family shall be givenemployment in the proposed factory. The DrstrictCollector shall be final authority to decide as to whoare the families displaced by the land acquisition.The Collector wili also specify which member of thefamily is to be given empioyment. In case ofdisputes, the decision of the Collector shall be hnaland binding on the Company."

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for by the learned counsel for learned counsel for for thepetitioner that on the Land Losers Certihcate, whichis issued by the second respondent - Sub Collector,Kothagudem, there is an endorsement made by the MandalRevenue Offrcer, Aswapuram, dated 26.01.19g7 that .,ShriK. Butchi Ramulu, s/o. Bakkaiah is the son_in_law of It is contended by the learned counsel for by the learned counsel for learned counsel for for the Madakam Yerraiah, land loser. Hence attested". Based [on]which, the petitioner's counsel contended that petitioner beprovided employment being a family member.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on thedecision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in WritPetition No.24063 of 2OO7 dated 15.11.2OO7 and [contends]that the facts in the said writ petition are similar [to ][the]facts of the case on hand, and hence, the relief [which ][has]been granted in the said writ petition [should ][be ][granted ][to]the petitioner.

6. It is further contended that in the letterNo.G/3863/2005, dated 08.03.2007 of the Collector [&]District Magistrate, Khammam addressed to the [Chief]General Manager, Heavy Water Plant [(Manuguru),]it is mentioned that the [petitioner ][is ][the]Aswapuram, owner of the Iand and the same has not [been ]taken [into]consideration by the concerned authorities ald the [case ][of]the petitioner has been rejected, which [is ]bad [in ][law ][ald]therefore, appropriate relief [be ][granted.]

7 . The learned Standing Counsel for the thirdrespondent contends that the case of petitioner wasexamined in the year 1991 ald the safite was closed.The petitioner being the son-in-law is not eligible, as he isnot a family member. It is contended that as per the Memodated 07.07.1981, in Clause (a) extracted supra, it hasbeen stated that one member of the family sha-ll be givenbeen stated that one member of the family sha-ll be givenemployment in the proposed plant. It is contended that aletter dated 08.03.2007 was addressed by the Collector,letter dated 08.03.2007 was addressed by the Collector,Khammam to the Chief General Manager, Heavy WaterPlant Plant (Manuguru), Aswapuram, to examine the case of thepetitioner and take necessary action. In response to thesaid letter, the Administrative Officer of the concerned Unit(i.e., Heavy Water Plalt at Manuguru) has addressed theletter dated II.O4.2OOT to the petitioner stating that he isnot eligible for employment.not eligible for employment.

8. Another ground which has been raised by the learnedStanding Counsel for the third respondent is that there isdelay in submitting the representation and if any person* [seeks employment ][under ]the land loser scheme/quota,he/ she has to submit a representation within one year '-/

+\-.-r-

from the date of issuance of Land Loser Certificate, timebeing the essence or at least within reasonable time.9. It is further contended that the facts in [W.P.No.24063]of 2OO7 are different to the facts of the present case [and]therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the [present]case, and at this distant point of time, the [case ][of ][the]petitioner cannot be considered, as his age also has to [be]taken into consideration.

10. It is contended that in the certihcate [dated ][26.01.1947]issued by the concemed authorities, no family [member was]identified, as to which family member should be [given]employment in Healy Water Plant, Manuguru. [It ][is ][also]contended that on the basis of the representation, [which]has been made by the petitioner, his [case ][was referred ][to]the Interview Committee, which met on 13/14.05.1987 [and]the case of the petitioner was not approved [as he was the]son-in-Iaw of the land loser and Sri Madakam [Yerraiah ][was]considered for employment on 14.07.1991, who is [the]actual land owner ald the Committee has notrecommended him, as he was overaged.

1 1 . Subsequentiy, arother Land Loser Certificate in RCNo.C/2904/87, dated 20.11.1990 was issued theby by revenue authorities for the land acquired to al extent ofAc.O.37 guntas in Survey No.9g/p of Madakam yerraiah.Madakam Yerraiah,s son M. Venkateswarlu was nominatedfor employment and he submitted an application datedMadakam Yerraiah,s son M. Venkateswarlu was nominatedfor employment and he submitted an application dated21.11.1991 and hence, the averment of the petitioner inthe writ affidavit i.e., K. Butchi Ramulu, that MadakamYerraiah was not having sons is not correct and thepetitioner was misleading the Court.petitioner was misleading the Court.

12. Heard the submissions made by the learned counselsand considered the rival contentions.

13. If the land in Survey No.79 admeasuring Ac.l.23guntas was given to the petitioner at the time of marriageand he is the owner, the petitioner should have produceddocumentar5r evidence to indicate that the petitioner hadtitle to lald. No documentar5r material has been placed onrecord. It is trite to mention here that Memo dated07 .OZ .lgal specifically states that the Collector shall befinal authority to specify the families displaced arrd shall r...

t

I

specify which member of family is to be [given employment.]In the Land Loser Certificate issued by office ofSub-Collector, Kothagudem, dated 26.OI.1987 [in ][RC]No.Dl al7l186, the petitioner's name is not identified [for]employment. The petitionerIS presently aged about 53years

14. A perusal of letter dated 08.03.2007 [of ][the ][Collector]and District Magistrate, Khammam, [addressed to ][the ][Chief]General Manager, Heary Water Plant, Manuguru [shows]that in the said letter, the Collector [has ][requested ][to]examine the case of the [petitioner ]and [take ][necessary]action as per rules. On the basis of the said [letter, ][a]communication was made to the [petitioner, ][vide ][letter]No.HWPM/(RllLLR-79lOU 361, dated tl.o4.2oo7. [In ][the]said letter, it was informed to the [petitioner ]that [the ][case ][of]the original land owner was examined [in ][199 ][1 ][and ][the]same was closed. It was also stated that [son-in-laws ][are]not eligible under 'Land Loser Quota'. An [endorsement]that petitioner is the son-in-law as [per ]the [certificate ][will]not entitle the petitioner for employment. [Once ][the ][case ][of]the petitioner has been considered and [found ][not ][eligible]

I

I

To,

for employment, subsequentry the petitioner cannot furtherrequest at a distant point of time and seek employment ashis case was already considered and held not eligible. Amere endorsement cannot be taken as basis for providingemployment, without being identified by Distrrct co[ectorfor employment. The phrase .family, includes a person, hisor her spouse, minor children, minor brothers and minorsisters dependent on him. The petitioner hereinconstitutes a separate family unit.

15. On a perusal of entire material papers ald havingheard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinionthat there are no merits in the writ petition and the writpetition is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. However,there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARIASSISTANTGIST//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana atHyderabad [OUTIHyderabad [OUTI2. One CC to SRl. P. V. RAMANA, Advocate [OPUCI3. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, [DY. ][SOLICITOR GENERAL ][OF]rNDrA IOPUC]3. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, [DY. ][SOLICITOR GENERAL ][OF]rNDrA IOPUC]4. Two CD Copies f-\.

HIGH COURT

DATED:2911212023

ORDER

WP.No.5720 of 2008

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

It{E [STAf]sq2o(.)1 2 [ilAn ][202[]Lzo4'*t O€SPAIC

u\