HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.17715 of 2002 Dated: 03-03-2011 Between: K.Maruthi Prasad …Petitioner AND The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Assignments-III), Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY W.P.No.17715 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner, who is a physically handicapped (deaf and dumb) sportsman, represented India in 14th, 15th,16th and 17th World games for deaf, sponsored by Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (‘SAAP’) and he had also participated in IX Asia Pacific Games for deaf held in the year 2000 at Thipai, Thaiwan and is also a bronze medal winner in table tennis in the year 1993 in the world games of deaf. The Government of A.P. to encourage the talented sportsmen evolved a scheme for allotment of house-sites. Therefore, the petitioner applied for allotment of such house-site with recommendation of SAAP, dated 29.5.2000. The Government through its memo No.22572/Assn.III(1)/2000-1, dated 24.7.2000 requested the Collector- third respondent herein to furnish the latest market value particulars of the surrounding land in T.S.No.1, part, Block-H, Ward No.10, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The District Collector submitted proposal for allotment of Government land to an extent of 493 sq.yds. in T.S.No.1, part, Block-H, Ward No.10, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in favour of the petitioner on payment of market value of Rs.3,500/- per sq.yd. Upon the recommendation of the District Collector, Hyderabad, the Special Chief Secretary/Chief Commissioner of Land Administration recommended the proposal to the Government for alienation of the land in favour of the petitioner on payment of market value. But, however, the Government through the impugned memo No.22572/Asn.III-1/2000-2, dated 31.10.2001 dropped the proposal for allotment of house-site in favour of the petitioner stating as under: “The attention of the Collector, Hyderabad is invited to the reference first cited. 2. Government, after careful examination of the matter, hereby, drop the proposal for allotment of house site in favour of Sri K.Maruthi Prasad, Deaf & Dumb sportsman.” Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that in case of one A.Ramakrishnam Raju, who had participated in only 14th, 15th and 16th world games for deaf, who represented India along with the petitioner, headed by the petitioner, who never superseded the petitioner nor defeated him in any of the events held anywhere else, the Government has allotted the land admeasuring 298 sq.yds. in T.S.No.17 in Sy.No.403, Shaikpet Village, vide G.O.Ms.No.1210/Revenue (Assigns-III) department, dated 21.12.1992. Whereas the petitioner’s case was rejected without assigning any reasons and therefore, the action of the Government is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and the same is in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner sought for a direction to the respondents to allot house-site to the petitioner in similar lines to that of A.Ramakrishna Raju, who was allotted house-site vide G.O.Ms.No.1210, dated 21.12.1992. Though rule nisi was issued in the writ petition as early as on 16.09.2002, the respondents moved little finger in the matter and neither filed any counter nor opposed the claim of the petitioner. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 10.2.2011, since no counter was filed, this Court directed the Joint Secretary to Government, Revenue (Assignment-III) Department to be present before this Court along with the relevant record pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.1210, dated 21.12.1992 and the Government policy for allotting house-sites in favour of talented sportsmen, physically handicapped (deaf and dumb) and to justify the allotment of house-site made in favour of A.Ramakrishna Raju while denying the same to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said direction, the Additional Secretary to Government, Revenue Department appeared in the Court along with the counter affidavit and with the records pertaining to G.O.Ms.No.1210 on 24.2.2011. Since the counsel for the petitioner was not present in the Court, the matter was adjourned to 25.2.2011 and even on the said date, the counsel for the petitioner was not present. Hence, the matter was directed to be posted today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. The participation of the petitioner in the 14th, 15th,16th and 17th World games under deaf and dumb quota representing India and his winning the bronze medal is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. It is also admitted that the case of the petitioner was recommended for allotment of house-site on payment of market value. It is stated that the impugned memo was issued in the year 2001 and it is a fact that no reasons on what ground the proposal was dropped has been indicated in the impugned memo. It is stated that efforts were made to trace out the original disposal of the said impugned memo but it was not traced out since it is a Government memo issued in 2001 and no file will be constructed. It is also admitted that the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide letter No.B3/1675/2009, dated 23.3.2010 has furnished detailed proposals for preparation of policy guidelines for allotment of house- sites for the category of eminent persons for their outstanding performance/talents in different fields including outstanding sports personalities of National and International who won medals in National Games/Asian Games/Olympic Games. It was also admitted about allotment of a house-site in favour of A.Ramakrishna Raju, sportsman, through G.O.Ms.No.1210, dated 21.12.1992. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Assignment and I have gone through the records with regard to allotment of house-site in favour of Ramakrishna Raju. Said Ramakrishna Raju being a sportsman (deaf and dumb) made a representation for allotment of house-site to the Government. One Rudraraju Padmaraju, Vice-President of Andhra Pradesh Youth Congress (I) Committee recommenced the case of Ramakrishna Raju through his letter head, dated 8.11.1991 to the Chief Minister, Government of A.P. duly forwarding his representation, dated 6.11.1991. The representation, dated 6.11.1991 made by A.Ramakrishna Raju discloses that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad identified the land and recommended for allotment of plot No.16, admeasuring 298 sq.yds. out of T.S.No.17, Ward No.10, Block-D in Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village stating that the said plot is lying vacant. In the application, said Ramakrishna Raju stated that the said plot be allotted to him as a free gift in same manner as was given to Mohd. Azharuddin, Indian Cricket Captain, since he is not in a position to pay market value i.e. Rs.400/- per sq.yd. The District Collector, through his letter, dated 19.12.1991 addressed to the Commissioner permitted alienation proposals in favour of A.Ramakrishna Raju (deaf and dumb sportsman) for allotment of house-site duly reporting the market value of the site at Rs.400/- per sq.yd. On receipt of the said letter, remarks were called for by the Government through memo No.97619/Assn.III(2)/91-2, dated 3.1.1992. In turn, the Commissioner of Land Revenue addressed a letter vide Lr.BB2/2931/90, dated 21.2.1992 to the Secretary to Government, Revenue (Assn.III) Department stating that if A.Ramakrishna Raju, physically handicapped (deaf and dumb) sportsman, in recognition of his high talented performance in the field of sports, deserves a plot as a handicapped person, then it should be given on free of cost. On building up a file, a draft memorandum was prepared for the Council of Ministers by the Revenue department as strictly confidential vide C.No.97619/ Asn.III(2)/91, wherein at para 4 it was stated that ‘as the land proposed for allotment is situated in M.C.H. area, there is a ban on assignment of Government land either on payment of market value or otherwise, as per the ban orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.634 Revenue (Asn.III) Department, dated 2.7.1990. Hence, these ban orders have to be relaxed by obtaining the approval of the Cabinet. Chief Minister passed orders to place the matter before the Council of Ministers.’ The matter was accordingly placed before the Council of Ministers for approval with the note and also with a draft resolution to approve the proposal to alienate the Government land measuring 298 sq.yds., situated in Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village correlated to T.S.No.17, Ward No.10, Block “D” of Shaikpet Village in favour of A.Ramakrishna Raju, Physically handicapped (deaf and dumb) sportsman in recognition of his highly talented performance in the field of sports, at free of cost, in relaxation of the ban orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.634, dated 2.7.1990. The said proposal was circulated to the Finance & Planning Department and it was noted by the said Department that the precedent quoted by the department is an exceptional case of the captain of the Indian Team and hence it cannot be automatically invoked and that the revenue department are requested to state whether there are any other precedents and they are also requested to state whether Cabinet approval is required. The said note was signed by the Secretary to Government, Finance, on 2.5.1992. Again the file was circulated to the Finance and Planning with the remarks, wherein it was endorsed by the Finance Department stating that the proposal of Revenue Department at para 8 on page 3 anti (i.e. allotting the plot at free of cost to A.Ramakrishna Raju being physically handicapped sportsman) is accepted in finance. Ultimately, when the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers, the Council of Ministers in the proceedings of 759th meeting held on 4.12.1992 resolved to approve the proposal to alienate the Government land measuring 298 sq.yds. in favour of A.Ramakrishna Raju and on such proceedings, the said plot was allotted in favour of A.Ramakrishna Raju vide G.O.Ms.No.1210, dated 21.12.1992. The entire file constructed in favour of A.Ramakrishna Raju for allotting the Government land in his favour reflects his influence with the political leaders. Since the representation of A.Ramakrishna Raju, dated 6.11.1991 was forwarded and recommended by the Vice- President of A.P. Youth Congress (I) Committee, it was taken into consideration and thereafter the file was built up to allot the Government land at free of cost to A.Ramakrishna Raju, who is close to the political power. Admittedly, the petitioner is a more talented sportsman than A.Ramakrishna Raju and in fact, said Ramakrishna Raju participated in the international games under the leadership of petitioner which fact has not been denied in the counter. Further though the Collector and Commissioner of Land Revenue recommended the case of the petitioner for allotment of Government plot it was not even considered favourably. Perhaps it may be for the simple reason that the petitioner has no political access with the leaders, who are in power to recommend his case, which shows the shady deals in distributing the State land by the State and discriminating the citizens who are equally placed. Though the benefits are conferred by the State Government for the talented sportsmen, the petitioner was denied the same treatment with that of A.Ramakrishna Raju, who is similarly situated to that of the petitioner. In a welfare State, when the State formulated a scheme to encourage the talented sportsmen, among them, there should not be any discrimination simply because they have no political patronage to enjoy the benefits under the scheme. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner even without building up of the file similar to that of A.Ramakrishna Raju, in spite of recommendation made by the Collector, shows that the welfare schemes are prepared only to encourage the persons, who are close to the political power but not to genuine citizens. Under those circumstances, the impugned memo rejecting the claim of the petitioner is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of house-site, if any such scheme is in existence for allotment of house-site in favour of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders by giving cogent reasons. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 03, 2011 Tsr.