IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE WRIT PETITION NO.29114 OF 2008 Between: Veeram Reddy Raghava Reddy … Petitioner And: The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasham District and 4 others ….. Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO.6622 OF 2009 Between: Sk.Imtiyaz Begum and 5 others … Petitioners And: The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasham District and 4 others ….. Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.29114 OF 2008 & WRIT PETITION NO.6622 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: In view of the questions involved in both the writ petitions being one and the same, these two writ petitions are being disposed of in a common order. The writ petition No.29114 of 2008 is filed for a writ of Mandamus holding that the action of the respondents 1 to 5 misusing the amount of Rs.693.10 lakhs in Komarole Mandal including Allinagaram Grampanchayath is illegal, arbitrary against Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 5 to submit the discrete inquiry report along with the audit report of the spending money till the date forthwith and to pass such suitable orders. The proposed parties who were impleaded as per the orders dated 15.09.2009 in W.P.M.P.No.2432 of 2009 in W.P.No.29114 of 2008, filed a counter-affidavit in detail along with the vacate stay application. The official respondents also filed counter-affidavit. While issuing the Rulenisi on 31.12.2008, in W.P.M.P.38047 of 2008, this Court had granted interim stay as prayed for, for a period of four weeks. The proposed parties impleaded- petitioners who came on record in W.P.M.P.No.2432 of 2009 in this writ petition, filed another writ petition No.6622 of 2009 before this Court wherein the writ petitioner, in writ petition No.29144 of 2009 is shown as 5th respondent. The said writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in with-holding amounts due under Comprehensive Land Development Scheme formulated under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 11.8.2004 by declaring the inaction as illegal, arbitrary and pass such suitable orders. The respondents had already filed their counter-affidavit in the writ petition No.6622 of 2009 denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. This Court issued Rulenisi in writ petition No.6622 of 2009 on 31.3.2009. Sri A. Ushi Reddy, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner in writ petition No.29114 of 2008 had taken this Court to the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and to the respective stands taken in the counter-affidavits and also the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the other writ petition No.6622 of 2009 and the stand taken by the contesting respondent i.e., 5th respondent in writ petition No.6622 of 2009 in his counter-affidavit filed in the said writ petition. The learned counsel also pointed out to the material papers filed in these writ petitions and would maintain that in the light of the serious allegations made, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition No.29114 of 2008 and hence it may be allowed and the writ petition No.6622 of 2009 may be dismissed. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development in writ petition No.6622 of 2009 had taken this Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the official respondents and would maintain that the particulars furnished are not the correct particulars. Even otherwise, the writ petitioner appears to be politically motivated and hence ultimately a request was made that the writ petition is to be dismissed. Sri Mallik, the learned counsel representing the beneficiaries who came on record in writ petition No.29114 of 2008 and writ petitioners in writ petition No.6622 of 2009 had taken this Court to the respective stands taken by the parties and would maintain that a frivolous writ petition had been thought of and since the interim order was not extended, the writ petition No.6622 of 2009 had been filed praying for positive directions. Heard the counsel on record. Perused the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and also the respective counter affidavits and material papers placed before this Court as well. The reliefs prayed for in respect of the writ petitions have already been referred to above. It is the case of the writ petitioner in the writ petition No.29114 of 2008 filed by the writ petitioner who is shown as 5th respondent in writ petition No.6622 of 2009, that the remaining respondents are the Government authorities who have assigned the lands of 320 acres in the Allinnagaram, Yarraguntla and Thimmareddypalli villages of Komarole Mandal, Prakasham District vide orders in R.C.No.B/230/90, dated 29.6.2007 to 115 persons. These assignment pattas were given by the then Tahasildar Satyanarayana was influenced by the Assignment Committee, Chairman without following the due process of law and ignored the procedure laid down in A.P. Assigned Land Act, 1977. Then 2nd respondent herein sanctioned Rs.10,000/- per acre under “Indira Prabha Scheme”. In total an amount of Rs.693.10 lakhs sanctioned by the 2nd respondent under the influence of the local M.L.A., and also Chairman of ARC of Giddaluru Assembly Constituency and released an amount of Rs.22.65 lakhs out of Rs.693.10 lakhs. It is also stated that the assigned land should be meant for the landless poor persons. According to the section 82 of A.P. Land Revenue Code, 1999, it denotes that (1) A person is land less poor, if he does not own any land at all, or if the land which he owns is less than 2 ½ acres of wet land or 5 acres of dry land, or if he owns both wet and dry lands at the rate of one acre of wet land equal to two acres of dry land his holding is below the said limit and is also poor. The respondents and the local MLA hatched the plan to earn Rs.693.10 lakhs within 95 days, because the Indira Prabha Scheme must be completed within 95 days and this fact is admitted by the Tahasildar, Komarole Mandal in his counter filed in the writ petition No.28368 of 2007. It is also stated that accordingly the Project Director released Rs.22.65 lakhs out of Rs.693.10 lakhs already they earned Rs.12.04 lakhs over this plan and hence it is a clear case of misappropriation of public funds during the pendency of the said writ petition. It is further stated that the Tahasildar shall on the basis of material placed before him, determine as to whether a person is a landless poor or not, for the purpose of assignment of land and hence it is a clear case of money benefit to the local M.L.A and his party members in Giddalur Assembly Constituency. It is also stated that the assignment land list dated 29.6.2007 proves that the most of persons i.e., 79 out of 115 persons are owned the patta lands and some of the persons are ex-service men, already they are obtained the lands on ex-service man quota, pertaining to the ex-service man, the landless poor person word does not arise. It is stated that the Tahasildar for the purpose of his retirement on 30.6.2007 he was very hurry to issue the pattas, it is the information from the persons who obtained pattas, each patta pass book was charged Rs.2,000/- by the then, Tahasildar as per the list the then, Tahasildar earned the money of Rs.2,30,000/- over the bogus patta’s and open the doors to sanction the “Indira Prabha” Scheme amount of Rs.693.10 lakhs. Therefore, it is the intention of the respondents to misuse the public money or funds over the double pattas. It is further stated that the action of the Project Director in sanctioning the amount of Rs.693.10 lakhs over assignment land pattas issued and in Komarole Mandal including Allinagaram village, Prakasham District and assigning the said land 809 acres in favour of 254 persons on 29.6.2007 without placing the matter before the Assignment Committee, it proves that the notice vide R.C.B/400/2007, dated 6.1.2008 issued by the Tahasildar to the petitioner to attend the meeting on 12.1.2008 at 12.00 “O” clock in the office of he Revenue Divisional Office, Markapur and accordingly the petitioner attended the meeting and received the agenda of the assignment of the land, but the respondent authorities issued he impugned orders prior to the said meeting i.e., six months ago and the present assignment members names had not been disclosed in the said agenda and the impugned assignment orders for sanctioning of the amount of Rs.693.10 lakhs is illegal and high handed without following due process of law. The said assignment was published after a lapse of two months as a news item. Thus, it is clear that the impugned assignment order is highly arbitrary, illegal and highhanded and misused the public money. Several grounds also had been raised in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Along with the writ petition, the following material papers had also been placed before this Court namely 1) P1 Comprehensive Land Development Project RIDF-XIII List of Beneficiaires, 2) P2 Counter affidavit in WP No.28368 of 2007, 3) P3 List of Particulars Assignment Land pattas in Allinagaram village in Komarole Mandal, 4) P4 Postal receipt, 5) P5 notice dated 17.12.2008, 6) P6 notice dated 21.12.2008, 7) Paper publication with Translation dated 26.7.2005, 8) Paper publication with translation dated 22.8.2007, 9) details of assignment lands in RC No.B/230/90 with translation dated 29.6.2007, 10) Grievance Cell with Translation dated 14.10.2007, 11) Memorandum with Translation dated 2.12.2008, 12) Memorandum with Translation dated 6.12.2007, 13) Invitation dated 6.1.2008, 14) Paper publication with translation dated 22.1.2008, 15) Paper publication with translation dated 27.1.2008, 16) Letter to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration dated 2.2.2008, 17) Representation – Grievance Cell with translation dated 19.5.2008, 18) Paper publication with translation dated 3.12.2008, 19) Patadar Pass Book with Translation, 20) List of Names Allianagaram Grampanchayath, Kommarole Mandal, 21) Letter to Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur R.C.No.B/230/1990. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the Government of A.P., vide its circular No.18/CLD/02/2008-1 dated 7.2.2008 had issued about implementation of the Comprehensive Land Development Project under RIDF-XIII with NABARD component converging with NREGS- AP for the activities like jungle clearance, bush clearance, removal of stumps, removal of large boulders, land leveling and other activities which requires machinery and drilling of irrigation bore wells, tilter points and purchase of motors and energisatin etc. and allocated total project outlay of Rs.1593.20 lakhs with NABARD loan component and convergence for development of area of 5590 Hectares to Prakasam District. It is further stated that the Mandal Coordinating Officers of Comprehensive Land Development Project were requested to obtain assigned land particulars from the Tahsildars concerned and identify bigger blocks covering undeveloped and undisputed land and prepare Comprehensive Land Development Project proposals and to identify the components which will be financed under RIDF- XIII in convergence with other programmes duly verifying physical possession of beneficiaries and to submit project proposals and action plan vide Rc.No.Cl/381/CLDP/2007 dated 6.8.2007. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent after identifying the list of beneficiaries of 189 persons vide Rc.No.Cl/287/2007, dated 17.8.2007 and the same was forwarded to the Project Director, DWMA, Prakasam District for developmental activities under CLDP. It is stated that out of total amount of Rs.33.76 lakhs, Rs.33.9 lakhs are granted under NREGS programmes for five blocks which includes Alli Nagaram village. In this regard an amount of Rs.7 lakhs only out of 33.76 lakhs for five blocks is released as advance to concerned common interest groups under RIDF-XIII for implementation of land developmental activities under CLDP through Rc.No.C2/285/RIDF-XIII/08, dated 18.6.2008 and 2.12.2008 by the District Collector and Chairman, DWMA, Prakasam District. It is further stated that it is not correct to say that the 2nd respondent has sanctioned Rs.10,000/- per acre and total amount of Rs.693.10 lakh under Indira Prabha under the influence of the local MLA and also Chairman of ARC of Giddaluru Assembly Constituency and released an amount of Rs.22.65 lakhs out of Rs.693.10 lakhs. It is stated that an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs were released to Komarole Mandal for 5 blocks including Allinagaram village vide Rc.No.C2/285/RIDF-XIII/2008 daed 14.10.2008 and 2.12.2008. It is also stated that all the beneficiaries are belonging to the low level economic status category and below the poverty line candidates and they are all rightly recognized by the Tahsildar as the genuine beneficiaries and basing on which he P.D. DWMA has intended to develop he same in accordance with the policy initiated by the Government under RIDF Phase- XIII NABARD funds and no grant has been accorded from NREGS as such. It is also stated that the concerned Project Director has prepared action plan based on the proposals received from the Tahsildar Komarole and Administrative sanction was given by the District Collector vide proceedings Rc.No.C2/285/RIDF-XIII/2008 dated 14.10.2008 and 2.12.2008 and an amount of Rs.7.00 lakhs have been released to 5 blocks in Komarole Mandal including Allinagaram village under CLDP as advance. Thus the contention of the petitioner that the NABARD funds are misutilised with political leaders interference is false and baseless. Inasmuch as it is prayed that the interim order granted earlier is liable to be vacated and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the affidavit filed in W.P.M.P.No.38047 2008 in W.P.No.29114 of 2008 by the proposed parties 6 to 11 who came on record by virtue of the orders in W.P.M.P.No.2432 of 2009 in W.P.No.29114 of 2008 dated 15.9.2009. It is stated that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 11.8.2004 introducing land Comprehensive Land Development Project where under with a view to develop the assignment land, the Government has introduced financial incentives to assignees and it is not able that the said scheme is not applicable to owners of patta land. It is also stated that the village of Allinagaram has been divided into three blocks such as Allinagaram-I, Allinagaram-II and Allinagaram-III and by proceedings dated 2.1.2008, each block has been sanctioned 1 lakh rupees, thus totaling three lakhs under the NABARD component. It is stated that while the allegations in the writ petition is in respect of 115 beneficiaries and further allegations have also been made with regard to 693.10 lakhs distribution of amounts which has nothing to do with the 115 beneficiaries and further the same has nothing to do with Comprehensive Land Development Project which is founded by the NABARD component and from other sources. It is stated that in sofar as Comprehensive Land Development Project in Allinagaram village the implementation part is not merely confined to 115 beneficiaries and it is 142 beneficiaries who have commenced the reclaiming activities by clearing the bushes etc., and the respondents-State authorities are bound to release further amount to the beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Land Development Project scheme. It is stated that as a matter of fact the Comprehensive Land Development Project is doing pioneering service to the farming community without the benefit of which these respondents could not have reclaimed the land and take steps for getting the land ready for cultivation. It is stated that due to the granting of interim orders dated 31.12.2008, further release of funds to the extent of Rs.19 lakhs have been stalled despite the required work up to clearing the bushes and forests growth have been cleared in three blocks. The specific stand taken that these parties are not landless poor persons had also been denied. The implead applicants respondents 6 to 11 who came on record in Writ petition No.29114 of 2008 filed the writ petition No.6622 of 2009 praying for a positive direction as already mentioned supra. The averments made in he present writ petition i.e., W.P.No.6622 of 2009 are substantially the same as made in the counter-affidavit filed by these parties in writ petition No.29114 of 2008. Likewise the 5th respondent had filed a counter-affidavit and the stand taken by the 5th respondent in this writ petition, is substantially same as taken in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition No.29114 of 2008. The following material papers had also been placed before this Court namely 1) G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 11.8.2004, 2) Rc.No.C2/285/RIDF/XIII/2008 dated 2.12.2008, 3) Resolutions with translation dated 2.5.2008, 4) Resolutions with translation dated 3.5.2008, 5) Resolutions with translation dated 4.5.2008, 6) Bank pass books of the petitioners, 7) Resolution of the committee with translation dated 12.1.2008, 8) Affidavit filed by the 5th respondent in W.P.No.29114 of 2008, 9) Affidavit filed by the 5th respondent in WP No.28368 of 2007 and 10) representation with translation dated 26.2.2009. As can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties, the writ petitioner in writ petition No.29144 of 2008 made certain serious allegations but however in the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the same had been denied. In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent in writ petition No.2368 of 2007, it is stated that Allinagaram village is situated far away from the district head quarters and abutting to Kadapa district, with population of 2200. The village is getting meager rainfall and mostly depending on rain fed drops. The lands are not fertile and rockery in nature. Basing on the above Geological condition the villagers are eking out their livelihood through coolly profession, as such to improve the condition of economical depressed people and the Administration had taken special steps for improving their financial condition. It is stated that the issue of pattas is only part and parcel of Development of lands on War-foot basis. In order to improve down trodden people financially, the pattas were issued in the village. There is no any malafide intention in issue of the pattas as alleged by the petitioner. It is stated that the issue of Assignment pattas were followed as per rules. The assigned lands are not fresh Government lands. It was an assigned lands which was issued by the then Tahsildars long back. It is further stated that the petitioner himself admit that the pattadars are non residence of the village. It is stated that the pattas were not issued hurriedly and arbitrarily because the procedure for issuing the pattas were stated in the month of March, 2007 and ended in June, 2007 which means nearly 95 days were elapsed and a vide publicity was also given at a every state. The petitioner was well informed in advance and given him the list of beneficiary for giving remarks. In the counter affidavit filed by the other official respondents, the same had been specifically denied. Certain material papers had also been produced before this Court. The relevant material papers had also been referred to above. The main ground of attack appears to be that the sanctioning of an amount of Rs.693.10 lakh is illegal and arbitrary and it is nothing but misappropriation of the public funds and the public money and the same is not being utilized properly and hence the said action is arbitrary and against the public policy. Thus improper sanctioning of the public funds and dishonest releasing of public money and in a way it would amount to misappropriation and mis-utilisation of public money. The action of the 2nd respondent and its authority would go to show the malicious intention to earn money and in order to use it for improper purpose and it would amount to misuse of public money. The procedure as contemplated under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands Act, 1977 and the Andhra Pradesh Board Standing Orders and A.P. Lands Revenue Code 1999 had also been relied on. Further it is stated that the respondents authorities have suppressed the several essential facts and further referred to G.O.Ms.No.590 (Revenue) dated 10.11.1995 and also made certain allegations in relation to M.L.A and also the Chairman of ARC of Giddaluru Assembly Constituency. It is also pertinent to note that the said persons were not shown as parties to the proceedings. Further it had been alleged that the rights guaranteed under the Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India are violated. On a careful analysis of the whole matrix and on perusal of the material papers placed before this Court in both the writ petitions, this Court is satisfied for such extraneous reasons, the present writ petition No.29114 of 2008 had been thought of. However, it is needless to say that the official respondents are expected to verify with care and caution the utilization of funds or otherwise. In the light of such allegations which had been made by the writ petitioners, this Court also does hope that inasmuch as the official respondents are trying to implement the policy, let them implement the policy in true sprit and let sufficient care and caution be taken in this regard by verifying all the facts again, so as to satisfy themselves that every aspect is being proceeded with particularly in the present context of episode. Except making these observations, no positive relief as such can be granted in the Writ Petition No.29114 of 2008. It is also needless to say that on such verification, if the respondents No.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.6622 of 2009 are satisfied, let them take appropriate further action in relation to implementation of Comprehensive Land Development Scheme formulated under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 11.8.2004, in accordance with law. Accordingly with the above observations, the writ petition No.29114 of 2008, is disposed of and to the extent indicated above, the writ petition No.6622 of 2009 is hereby allowed. The parties herein shall bear their own costs. ___________________ Date:22.09.2009 P.S.NARAYANA,J Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.29114 OF 2008 & WRIT PETITION NO.6622 OF 2009 Date:22.09.2009 Gk.