High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in non-alloting the substitute land to an extent of Ac 5-00 gts to the petitioner, who is the legal heir'of the Late Sri E J Robert Ex-Service man in pursuance of the orders of the Honble High Court, dated. O2-01-2017, in WP. No 13713 of 2010, who was allotted the land to an extent of Ac 4-30 gts situated in Sy.No 779, Bancharai of Sultanabad Village and Mandal, Peddapally District under the rehabilitation scheme of the Ex-servicemen, vide proceedings No. G/370/2002, dated. 02-09-2003 as an illegal, ex-facie, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, irrational, unreasonable, unlawful, unconstitutional, perverse, mockery, inequity and in violative of Articles 14, 19,21and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and against to the Principles of Natural Justice and against the catena of the Judgments of this tlon'ble court and an Apex court and set aside the same and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to allot the substitute land to an extent of Ac 5-00 gts to the petitioner in pursuance of the orders of the Hon,ble High court, dated. 02-01-2017, in wp. No 13713 of 2010, who is the regar heir of the Late sri E J Robert, Ex-service man, who was allotted the land to an extent of Ac 4-30 gts situated irr sy.No 779, Bancharai of Sultanabad village and Mandal, Peddapally District under the rehabilitation scheme of the Ex-servicemen, vide proceedings No. G/:r7012002, dated 02-09-2003. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15i cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High court may be.pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to allot the substitute land to an extent of Ac 5-00 gts to the petitioner in prs15ssr16e of the orders of the Hon,ble High Court, dated. 02'01-2017, in wP.No.13713 of 2010, who is the legar heir of ihe Late sri E J Robert, Ex-Service man, who was afiotted the rand to an extent of Ac 4-30 gts situated in Sy.No 77ct, Bancharai of Surtanabad Vifiage and Mandar, peddapaily District under the rehabilitation scheme of the Ex-servicemen, vide proceedings No. G/370/2002, dated 02-09-2003, pending disposat of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI pRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 7 HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY ORDER UTRIT PETITI ON No. 8790 of 2o.25 is stated that the petitioner is the daughter_in -law of one Earla Jacob Robert, an Ex-serviceman, who worked as Soldier in Indian Army of Bombay Engineering Group and participated in the World War Second Veteral with ID No.AplO6/00063. Therefore, the father-in_law of the petitioner is entitled for allotment of agricultural land and house site in terms of the policy laid down by the Gorre..rm..rtt in G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 3O.O4.1963 and the Revenue Inspector, Sultanabad, has addressed a letter, dated 2g.O2.1966 in Fiie No.67O9 /69, requesting the Tahsildar to assign an area of land admeasuring Acs.S.OO in Sy.No.779 Bancharai, in favour of the petitioner's father-in-law Robert, under Ex-serviceman quota. It is further stated that during his lifetime, the petitioner,s husband made number of applications for allotment of the lald under Ex-serviceman quota. The grievance of the petitioner is that till date, the respondents did not consider the applications seeking for allotment of land.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government 2 CVBR, J wp 8790_2025 Pleader for Ret'enue appearing for respondent Nos l to 5 and rvith their ('onsent, this writ petition is being <Iisposed at the admission s tagc.

3. I-earned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently r:ontended that when the respondents have not considered the applications for allotment of the land in terms of the Government Orders, the petitioner's husband was constrained to lrle a wnt petition before this Coort uide W'P'No 13713 of 201O and tile same was disposed of on O2'Of ilo17, permitting thr: petitioncr's husband to make an application lbr allotment of thc land artd if such application has been m:xle, respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein were directed to consider the same in acr:ordzrnce with la'"r' The grievance of the pctitioner is that even a sper: iltc direction was issued by this Cottrt in the year 2017, the respondent authorities have not considered the during her husband's lifetime and there is no representatl()n person to lzrke care of the family and that thr: petitioner is striving hard to eke out her livelihood' Learne d Assistant Government Pleader fcrr Assignment 4 . has not disputed the issuance of G'O'Ms No 743' dated a policy for allotment of house

30.04.1963 framing 3 site s / agricultural lands to the Ex-servrcemen villages CVBR, J wp-8790.2P25 in their natle It is seen from the record that this Court in W P'No' 13713 5. of 2O10, directed respondent Nos'2 and 3 therein to consider the application submitted by the husband of the petitioner for allotment of the land' Unfortunately' the State has not taken any decision during the lifetime of the petitioner's husband' It is stated that the petitioner is roaming pillar to post' for aliotment of the land in terms of the above Government Orders and even after a Iapse of rnore than six decades after retirement of the Ex-serviceman' no piece of land has been identihed as house site or agricultural land for allotment' Keeping the object oftheGovernmentwhileissuingG.o.andtheservicesrendered by the father-in-law of the petitioner during the Second World War for the Nation, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner for allotment of the agricultural land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30'04 1963' In the event no land is availableeitherforhousesiteoragricultrrralpr.rrpose,the respondent authorities are directed to pass a reasoned order I / and comm -rnicate the se eight (og) u eeks from an.'-t 6. With l.he above obs or. There sha, be ,o o.o. CVBR. I Wp_8790 202s to the petitioner within a period of date of receipt of a col)), of this order. t*tt'ons' this writ petition r as to costs. ts disposed

7. As a s:quel, the shall stand c.losed. mtscellaaeous petitions pending, if any, \ o //rRuE copyil ^.:?{-I^Il+HEq*rRiX' ecrrolfrrrcen 'o'.,. ,n" princioar .Sanro+^^- isffi lr','B?,.E "{ aiffi !i:,. ?T"?I,T,";;,r,s?#"ro,5,.%," "t?

2. The Diskict Collr: 3. The District cor., 4. rhe Revenue peooapairriiiisi,., 5. The Tahasildar, S; 6. one cc to sRr ,,.'""'o"o 7. Twoccs to Gp ,,*tno** f, Karimnagar District, K ctor' Peddapallv Ditt'itt"r";';:::treransana state' *o'i5'r";g"rogggt*ro1, Revenu Division peddapary Mandal Peddapally District, Terangana state. CHIKKUDU' Advocate toPUcJ uvo;rJiiiiu-nr-oR REVENUE, High court for the stare of Teransana ar .^I. T*o CD Copies .; &r"A ,l HIGH COURT DATED: 2410312025 , ORDER WP.No.8790 of 2025 .)r' I 0 { APrl ?rr., .* QeCPA.TC:v',el) * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS