Cennia Boina Gangaiah v. The State of Telangana

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 to 5 in non-considering the representation of the petitioner, and non-allotting the land to an extent of Ac.10.00 gts in Sy.No.2B2 which situated at Tulekhurd Revenue Village, Yacharam [Vlandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioner under the Ex- Servicemen quota by implementing the directions of the Government and non- allotting the Iand to the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner, and to allot the land to an extent of Ac.10.00 gts in Sy.No.282 situated at Tulekhurd Revenue Village, Yacharam I\/andat, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioner under the Ex-Servicemen quota by implementing the directions of the Government and non-allotting the land to the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 .Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 to 5 to consider the representation of the petitioner, and to allot the land to an extent of Ac.10.00 gts in Sy.No.2B2 situated at Tulekhurd Revenue Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District to the petitioner under the Ex-servicemen quota by implementing the directions of the Government and non-allotting the land to the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16124 OF 2O23 ORDER: This writ petition is fiied with the following relief:- '...to issue an order or direction more partianlarlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandomus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 to 5 in non-consideing the representation of the petitioner, and non-allotting the tand to an ertent of Ac.10.00 gts in Sg.No.282 tthich situaled at Tulekturd Reverute Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddg Dlstict to the petitioner under the Ex-Seruicemen quota bg imptementing the directions of the Gouemment and non-allotting the land to the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Nahtd Justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 3O0-A of the Constitution of India and consequentlg direct the respondent No.3 to 5 to cortsider tle representation of the petitioner, and to allot ttrc land to an ertent of Ac.10.00 gts in SA.N,.282 situated at Tuleklurd Reuenue Village, Yacharam Manda| Ranga Reddg Distiat to the petitioner under the Ex-Seruicemen qlota bA implemenling the d.irections of tle Gouemment and non-allotting the land to the petitioner and pass such order or ord'ers as this Hon'ble Court mag deem fit and proper in the ctrcumstances of the case'. t Tt., :l -, {

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

3. It is stated that the petitioner is an ex-service man retired from the Indian Armed Forces in the year 2009. It is stated that the petitioner has made a representation dated 1O.O2.2022 seeking for allotment of the agricultural land to an extent of Acs. 10.00 gts., in I Survey No.282 situated at Tulekhurd Revenue Village, Yacharam ? Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, for eking out his livelihood, as per policy laid down by the State Government from time to time 2 CVBR, J w _16124_2023 1 It is further stated that after his retirement, he is permanently settled in Yacharam Mandal of Ranga Reddy District and as such he is entitled for the allotment of the land in Ranga Reddy District in terms of the policy guidelines issued by the Government. The grievance of the petitioner is even though he made a representation for the allotment of the land in terms of the policy guidelines issued by the Government, respondent Nos.3 to 5 have not considered the same so far.

4. Sri Rapotu Bhasker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that to facilitate the Ex-servicemen, who retired from Armed Forces, the Government enunciated a policy uide G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30.04.1963 and G.O.Ms.No. 1835, dated 25.11.1962. It is further stated that in terms of the policy, the ex-service men, who are domiciled in Andhra Pradesh and serving in the Defence Forces of India will after demobilization be eligible for the assignment of land in their own village or elsewhere in terms of the said G.Os.

5. karned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Giddalur, Prakasham District of Andhra Pradesh and he would not fall within the guidelines issued. It is further submitted that he is not a native \ -':::laY.:a.*?z A J CVB& J wp-16124 2023 of Telangana State or the village for which he sought for the allotment of the land in the State of Telangana.

6. Be that as it may, since the grievance of the petitioner is after retirement, he is settled in the State of Telangana and residing in Ranga Reddy District since long time, this Court without expressing any opinion on the right and entitlement of tJle petitioner to consider in terms of the Government policy in G.O.Ms.No .243, dated, 3O.O4.1963 and G.O.Ms.No.1835, dated 25. 1L.t962, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to examine the representation submitted by the petitioner and if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for allotment of the land in terms of the policies in force, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from today. 7 With the above observations, this Wiit petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY T REGISTRAR AS IST //TRUE COPY// \ To, CTION OFFICER 1 The. Prin^cipal Secretary, Revenue Department, secretariat, Secretariat \l Building, Secretary, Hyderabad, State of Tblangana. 2. The Chief Commissioner, CCLA, Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy, Ranga Reddy District 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer. lbrahim nam Divi on District. Reddy |, ,.1

5. The Tahsildar, Yacharam [\/andal, Ranga Reddy District. 6. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State. of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] \ B. Two CD Copies BSR GJP s , I I I { HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112025 ORDER WP.No.16124 of 2023 esI t< f () 1 B l{l[B 2ir25 t oEsrAlc ( .l I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS cDhr'4 \da\,(