IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17487 OF 2005 Dt.02.2.2010 Between: Chepuri Rajiah and others … Petitioners And The State of A.P., represented by Principal Secretary Social Welfare Department, A.P., Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. V. Bindu, for Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 4 to 6: A.G.P. for Social Welfare Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Mrs. A. Krishnaveni for Mr. M. Ganga Rao THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17487 OF 2005 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not granting the indemnified amounts in respect of sanctioned open wells in respect of the petitioners’ agricultural lands, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each as compensation or in the alternative to grant agricultural land which would be sufficient for their sustenance. Heard Ms. V. Bindu, representing Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners claimed to belong to Scheduled Castes community and be agriculturists by profession. They are stated to have applied for sanctioning interest-free subsidized loans for drilling of open wells in their agricultural fields in pursuance of the scheme, called ‘NSFDC programme’, formulated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. By proceedings dt.16.8.2001 respondent No.3, in his capacity as President of the District Scheduled Castes Service Cooperative Society Limited, Warangal, has sanctioned thirteen open wells with an outlay of Rs.4,16,000/- at the rate of Rs.32,000/- each. As a follow up, respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dt.31.7.2002, addressed a letter to respondent No.4 to submit progress report of the wells. In the annexure, the details of the petitioners are mentioned. The petitioners filed this Writ Petition with the grievance that despite the sanction of loans, they have not been disbursed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It is inter alia stated in the counter affidavit that the information received by respondent No.2, through the Mandal Parishad Development Officers and Village Secretaries of Bollikunta, Panthini and Perkedu Villages, revealed that all the thirteen petitioners are not residents of the said villages, that no land stands in the name of the petitioners as per the survey numbers mentioned by them and that while thirteen wells were sanctioned in favour of twenty-six beneficiaries, only thirteen persons have filed the Writ Petition. It is further stated that out of the thirteen petitioners, petitioner No.5 alone belongs to scheduled caste and the remaining petitioners are all benamies and none of the petitioners have any land anywhere in the villages referred to above, except in case of Kandika Komriah (petitioner No.5), who owns an extent of Ac.1.06 cents. A serious allegation of cheating is made in the counter affidavit. It is therefore stated that in view of the fraudulent claim made by the petitioners for obtaining the loan, the loan amounts were not disbursed. Along with the counter affidavit, the reports of the respective Mandal Parishad Development Officers have been filed with reference to each of the petitioners to substantiate the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioners made false claims regarding their community, nativity and owning the lands. Though the counter affidavit was served on the petitioners’ counsel, as far back as 22.12.2005, no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners controverting the serious allegations made against them in the counter affidavit. In the absence of such a reply affidavit, I do not find any reason to doubt the veracity of the allegations contained in the counter affidavit. As the petitioners are not found to be bona fide applicants, no rights came to be vested in them for claiming loan, even though respondent No.3 had sanctioned the same obviously being unaware of the fraudulent claims of the petitioners. Therefore, I find no reason to grant any relief to the petitioners. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02.2.2010 bnr