G.P.Vinod Kumar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assignment-III) Department & others

Order

As the petitioner in both the writ petitions is same and the subject matter also relate to same property, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the parties as arrayed in W.P.No.8537 of 2002.

2. The writ petition in W.P.No.8537 of 2002 is filed questioning the Memo, dated 17.04.2002, issued in Memo No.53558/Assn.III(2)/ 95, rejecting the claim of petitioner for allotment of land to an extent of 600 square yards with old house in Plot No.20, bearing house No.10- 2-177, situated at West Marredpally, Secunderabad, on payment basis. The writ petition in W.P.No.16206 of 2008 is filed, questioning the orders, dated 15.07.2008, passed in Memo No.13964/Accom.A1/2008, issued by the 1st respondent-Government. By the aforesaid proceedings dated 15.07.2008, the Government has passed orders in exercise of powers under Section 10(2)(v) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, cancelling the allotment orders issued to the petitioner with regard to the aforesaid house.

3. Necessary facts in brief, for disposal of these writ petitions, are as under : The building in Plot No.20 in an area of 600 square yards, situated at West Marredpally, bearing house No.10- 2-177, is a leasehold property within the meaning of A.P. Secunderabad Land Administration Rules, 1976. Originally, the aforesaid building was leased out in favour

of Smt.Munirunnisa Begum and subsequently it was transferred in favour of Suratmal Alamchand and Sons and a fresh lease deed was executed on 31st of December 1968 for a period of 30 years with effect from 4th August 1965. After the death of original lessee Sri Suratmal Alamchand, the 5th respondent herein has applied for mutation of his name on the ground that the said leasehold property fell to his share in the family partition, but it has not been effected. But in the meanwhile, the Government tookover the property under Section 3 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, and it was let out originally to the father of the petitioner by name G.M.Pentaiah, who was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the office of the Chief Security Officer, Government Press, Hyderabad. The building was allotted on rental basis vide Memo No.165/Accom.A1/87-14, dated 16.06.1988, and after his retirement, on the application of the petitioner, who is working as Inspector of Police, is re-allotted to the petitioner pursuant to the proceedings issued by the Deputy Secretary to Government, who is authorized officer under the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, by proceedings, dated 16.06.1988, issued in Memo No.165/Accom.A1/87- 14, on a monthly rent of Rs.450/-, excluding water and electricity charges.

4. The petitioner herein, while continuing as a tenant in the aforesaid house, has requested the Government to convert the said leasehold property into freehold by collecting the market value. It appears, at first instance, without examining the request of the petitioner in proper perspective, the Government has issued proceedings, dated 6th February 1997, in Memo No.53558/Asn.III(1)/ 95-7, Revenue, which was addressed Commissioner of Land Administration, accepting the request of the petitioner, provided the petitioner is willing to pay the full market value of the property. But thereafter, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Andhra Pradesh has addressed the Government stating that the petitioner is not entitled for conversion, as he is not the lessee and the premises was allotted to him by the Government on rental basis. Referring to the said communication sent by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, a Memo dated 17th April 2002, is issued in Memo No.53558/Asn.III.2/98, Revenue, stating that the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of land on payment of market value.

5. When the 5th respondent, who succeeded to the leasehold rights, claimed that he is in need of the house in question for his residential purpose, and when he further complained of default in payment of rents by petitioner, at first instance, a notice, dated 27.05.2008, was issued to the petitioner, for which, he has submitted his explanation on 04.06.2008, and thereafter, no further steps were taken. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued

27.06.2008 in Memo No.13964/Accom.A1/2008-3. In the aforesaid notice, it is alleged that the building was taken over from the 5th respondent under Section 3 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, and was allotted to the petitioner as a tenant. It is further alleged that the petitioner has acquired some other property in his wife’s name in Plot No.24, admeasuring 353 square yards, situated at Teachers Colony, Gunrock, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, and constructed a house and is realizing the rental income. Alleging that he has secured alternative building in his wife’s name, but he has not informed the same to the Government, he was directed to show cause as to why the allotment order issued to him should not be cancelled and why he should not be evicted from his private building, so as to hand over the same to the 5th respondent. On the ground that inspite of receipt of such show cause notice no explanation is offered, the order, dated 15.07.2008, in Memo No.13964/Accom.A1/2008-4, passed Government, cancelling the allotment of the house in question to the petitioner, for the purpose of handing over the same to the 5th respondent for his residential use.

6. In these writ petitions, it is the case of the petitioner that after issuance of proceedings, dated 6th February 1997 in Memo No.53558/Assn.III(1)/95-7, by Government, he has procured money for payment of the market value, and inspite of the same, his claim is rejected without assigning valid reason. As averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the sole basis for the claim for conversion of the aforesaid property as a freehold property, claiming benefits under G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09.08.1984, is that he is a Government servant, and that as a National Football player, he represented the State at National level.

7. The proceedings, dated 15.07.2008, issued in Memo No.13964/Accom.A1/2008-4, is questioned mainly on the ground that although the petitioner has submitted his explanation the show cause notice, dated

27.05.2008, without referring to the explanation filed by him, impugned order is passed cancelling allotment made to him.

8. In the counter affidavits filed by respondents 1 to 4 and the 5th respondent, it is their case that the petitioner is only a tenant, who is allotted the property on rent by the Government in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, as such, he is a tenant paying the rents, which are payable to the 5th respondent, and hence, he is not entitled for conversion of leasehold property into freehold property by paying the market value. It is the further case of the respondents that the house in question is allotted on rental basis originally to the father of the petitioner as he was in the service of Government and on the eve of his retirement, on the application submitted by the petitioner, who is also working as Inspector of Police, the quarter in question is allotted on rental basis. It is further stated that as he has secured alternative accommodation in the name of his wife and as he did not bring it to the notice of the Government, and on the representation filed by the 5th respondent about his requirement to occupy the said house for his personal use, the impugned order is passed cancelling the allotment. It is stated that though the show cause notice, dated 27.05.2008, was served on the petitioner, he has not filed any explanation to the said show cause notice. In that view of the matter and in view the alternative accommodation secured by petitioner in the name of his wife, he is not entitled for continuation in the quarter.

9. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri Mohmood Ali, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel Smt.N.Saraswathi, representing Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, counsel for petitioner on record, that the lease granted in favour of respondent No.5 has already come to an end in the year 1995, and in that view of the matter, he is not entitled to seek restoration of possession. It is submitted by the learned counsel that having issued the proceedings, dated 6th February 1997, in Memo No.53558/Asn.III(1)/95-7, Revenue, there is no reason or justification for not extending the benefit of allotment by collecting full market value of the property.

11. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader and also learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 that the petitioner, as a tenant, is not entitled to seek conversion of leasehold property into freehold property in terms of G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09.08.1984. It is submitted that as per the Government orders issued in the said G.O., only lessees are entitled to seek conversion, but not a tenant, who is allotted the house in question under Section 3(6) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,

1960. It is further submitted that as the petitioner is in Government service and on his application that he is not having his own accommodation, he is allotted the house in question, but he has failed to bring to the notice of the Government about the alternative accommodation secured by him, and therefore, after giving show cause notice, the order dated 15.07.2008, is passed in Memo No.13964/Accom.A1/2008-4.

12. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I have perused the material on record. In these writ petitions, it is to be noticed that undisputedly the petitioner is a tenant, who is allotted the quarter by the authorized officer under Section 3(6) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. I have perused the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09.08.1984. The said G.O. permits conversion of leasehold properties in Secunderabad area into freehold properties, on payment of market value as determined by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, A.P., Hyderabad. From the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner is not a lessee of the property in question at any point of time, and there was no lease in his favour. It is clear from the counter affidavit filed by the Government that as the house has fallen vacant, same was taken possession by the Government and is allotted originally to the father of the petitioner, and thereafter, on the application submitted by the petitioner, it is allotted to him as a tenant, by fixing rent of Rs.450/- per month. It is also clear that the rental arrears deposited by the petitioner, were in turn paid to the 5th respondent. Although it is pleaded that the lease deed is expired, as such, he is not eligible for conversion of leasehold to freehold, the said question need not be decided by this Court in these writ petitions. So far as these writ petitions are concerned, they are confined to the conversion claimed by the petitioner and also the validity of the order, dated 15.07.2008, issued in Memo No.13964/Accom.A1/2008, by which, allotment made to the petitioner on rental basis, is cancelled. As much as the very claim of the petitioner for conversion is based on G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09.08.1984, he is not entitled for any conversion. From a perusal of the aforesaid Government Order, it is clear that the same will apply only for conversion of leasehold properties to freehold, on the application of lessees. As much as the petitioner is not the lessee of the building in question at any point of time, he is not entitled to seek conversion, by paying the market value, as the petitioner is a Government servant, and on his application for allotment on rental basis, the building was allotted to him. If the claim of the petitioner is to be considered, as stated in the counter affidavit, every occupant of a Government quarter seeks conversion by paying the market value. The learned counsel for petitioner has not brought to the notice of this Court any policy or scheme for allotment of quarter on market value either on account of being a Government servant or a National Football Player, as alleged. In the absence of any such policy, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for allotment on payment of market value. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any justifiable ground for the petitioner to seek the relief of invalidating the order, dated 17th April 2002, issued in Memo No.53558/Assn.III(2)/95, rejecting his claim for allotment of house in question, on payment of market value.

13. With regard to the proceedings, dated 15.07.2008, issued in Memo No.13964/Accom.A1/2008, as evident from the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, apart from the show cause notice dated 27.05.2008, a further show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on

27.06.2008. From a perusal of the show cause notice dated 27.06.2008, it is clear that the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the allotment made to him should not be cancelled on the ground that he has secured alternative accommodation in the name of his wife. Though it is pleaded that his explanation was not considered before passing the impugned order, it is to be noticed that at first instance, a show cause notice was issued on 27.05.2008 on the allegation of default committed by the petitioner in payment of rents, but after submission of explanation filed by the petitioner on

04.06.2008, no steps were taken, but subsequently, another show cause notice dated 27.06.2008, was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the allotment made in his favour should not be cancelled on the ground that he has secured alternative accommodation in the name of his wife Smt.G.L.Madhavi. With regard to said notice, it is categorically averred in the counter affidavit that at first instance, it was sent by a special messenger, who has reported that the petitioner was not residing there and was residing at Banjara Hills, Hydlerabad, and then it was sent to the petitioner by certificate of posting. It is stated that the said notice was served on the petitioner, but inspite of the same, no explanation is offered. In the absence of any explanation and in view of securing alternative accommodation by the petitioner in his wife’s name Smt. G.L.Madhavi in Plot No.24, Teachers Colony, Gunrock, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, petitioner is not entitled for continuation in the quarter. In view of securing alternative accommodation, respondents are empowered to pass the order of eviction by cancelling the allotment, in exercise of powers under Section 10(2)(v) of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions for grant of relief as prayed for. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that with regard to the claim of respondent No.5, this Court has not expressed any opinion on such claim and it is open to the Government that if any application is pending either for mutation of building in his name or the claim for conversion to freehold, it is open for respondent-authorities to consider the same on its own merits, un-influenced by any of the observations made in this order. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th September 2011