HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 31693 OF 2010 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary I and CAD Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others ………….Petitioners AND Kotti Ramana , Unemployee, Kinneravada and one another ………….Respondents ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice N. RAVI SHANKAR ) This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order dated 4.11.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No. 4863 of 2009 giving a specific finding that the first respondent- applicant owns only an extent of 0.29 cents of land and the case of the first respondent-applicant would fall under the scheme of giving a job for the land acquired for the purpose of “Vamshadhara Project” and consequently the governmental authorities i.e., respondents 1 to 3 in O.A. and petitioners herein should consider first respondent-applicant’s case for giving him a job. The plea of the petitioners i.e., Governmental authorities is that originally only an extent of Ac. 1.57 cents of land was acquired out of the joint family land i.e., Ac. 2.70 cents and that the first respondent’s family still owned even after that acquisition an extent of Ac. 1.13 cents and under the relevant Scheme the case of the first respondent-applicant’s family was rejected earlier by the order dated 18.10.2008 by the third petitioner herein on the ground that the left over land after acquisition was Ac. 1.13 cents which is more than Ac. 1.00 and therefore, according to the scheme framed by the Government in Memo No. 188/LAR (2)/89-6 dated 19.4.1990 the first respondent- applicant’s family is not eligible for any job. This decision of the Government has been questioned in O.A. The Tribunal after considering the matter gave a specific finding that the first respondent-applicant’s family owned only an extent of Ac. 0.29 cents and therefore, they are eligible for the job under the Scheme and accordingly directed the Governmental authorities to consider the case of the first respondent- applicant and pass necessary orders. On the other hand, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services-II is that the Tribunal relied upon the certificate issued by the Revenue authorities which is of the year 2009-2010 and which shows that the first respondent-applicant’s family owned only Ac. 0.29 cents. His further contention is that the acquisition is of the year 1975 and at that time the first respondent-applicant’s family owned more than Ac. 1.00 and in course of time they might have sold away a portion of that land and consequently by 2010 it is quite possible that the first respondent-applicant’s family came to own only Ac. 0.29 cents and therefore, the Tribunal’s order cannot be said to be correct. In this context he also pointed out that the finding of the Tribunal that the 1st respondent or his family owned only Ac. 0.29 cents of land would take away the discretion of the authorities concerned to take a decision regarding the extent of land owned by first respondent or his family after acquisition in 1975 and fetter its discretion. We find force in this contention. It may be noted that the Tribunal’s finding that the first respondent-applicant’s family owns only Ac. 0.29 cents, is mainly based upon a certificate issued by the revenue officer for the year 2009-2010 but not on any other material which was available soon after the acquisition. We are therefore of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal cannot be said to be correct. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal’s Order should be set aside and the first respondent should be given one more opportunity to represent his case before petitioners to prove his case regarding his eligibility for getting a job under the relevant scheme pertaining to the acquisition of his land or his family’s land. The first respondent shall submit his representation to petitioners or the concerned petitioner as expeditiously as possible and the same shall be disposed of by the concerned petitioner also as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J DATE: 21.12.2010 KA Note: Furnish copy in two days. ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.