THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WP No. 880 of 1998 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the request made by the petitioners for allotment of Low Income Group houses at Jadcherla and Narayanpet of Mahabub Nagar District on hire purchase basis in their favour as bad. The case of the petitioners is that certain houses were got constructed by `City Improvement Board’, a forerunner to A.P. Housing Board, for catering to the housing demands of the Low Income Group at Jadcherla and Narayanpet in Mahabub Nagar District and these houses which were allotted on rental basis, should be sold on hire purchase basis, spread over a period of 15 years. That according to the petitioners would enable the petitioners to acquire the title over the house, which was under their occupation and maintenance over a long period of time. Earlier, WP No. 13846 of 1986 has been filed in this court seeking directions to the respondents, in essence for allotting the Low Income Group Houses at Jadcherla and Narayanpet on hire purchase basis. The claim in the said writ petition was rested on the basis of a policy decision taken by the State Government in their favour vide G.O.Ms. No. 57, dated 23.6.1964. However, WP No. 13846 of 1986 is dismissed by this court by its judgment dated 8.3.1989. It will be appropriate to notice the following observations made in the course of the said judgment: “I must observe that it is not for the court to review or reconsider or examine any policy decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is always open to the petitioners to move the Government for extending to them the benefits conferred under G.O. Ms. No. 57, dated 23.6.1964 and other GOs and Memoranda issued from time to time. It is, however, brought to my notice that the petitioners have since made a representation in that behalf. If so, the same shall be disposed of by the first respondent within two months from the date of receipt of these orders.” Since the writ petitioners are seeking to place reliance upon the orders passed by the State Government in their G.O. Ms. No. 57, dated 23.6.1964, a copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure 4 to this writ petition, I consider it appropriate to notice the contents thereof. It was noted therein that during March 1952, the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad decided that City Improvement Board built houses, which were allotted initially on rental basis, should be sold to them at the market rate. It was further noticed that the said decision has not been implemented as the occupants of the houses have solicited for a reduction of the market value of the houses. The State Government has decided that the houses allotted by the former City Improvement Board on rental basis should be sold at a price comprising of (a) cost of land as fixed by the government in 1956 and (b) the original cost of construction without any allowance for depreciation. It was further made clear by the government that the houses should be sold on hire purchase basis to the occupants who have been recognised by the Board as its tenants. The Chairman of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board is directed to take necessary action in that regard. As was noticed by this court on the last occasion, in its judgment noted supra, the orders passed by the State Government in G.O. Ms. No. 57, dated 23.6.1964, are not attracted to the cases of the petitioners, inasmuch as the petitioners are all government servants who have been transferred from Hyderabad City and they have been allotted as their residential quarters, utilising the Low Income Group Houses constructed by the former City Improvement Board. Therefore, the conditions specified in G.O. Ms No. 57 are not automatically attracted and hence this court observed that it is open to the petitioners to move the government for extending to them also the benefits conferred upon the tenants under G.O. Ms. No. 57, dated 23.6.1964. So far, the State Government has not taken any such decision to extend the benefits contained in G.O. Ms. No. 57 to the case of the petitioners. When the petitioners moved another WP No. 8389 of 1989, a Division Bench of this court directed the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners for allotment of Low Income Group Houses at Jadcherla and Narayanpet in terms of the government orders governing such allotment. It is pursuant to the said judgment, the District Collector, Mahabub Nagar, passed orders through his proceedings dated 29.6.1997 setting out that the policy of the State is not to sell any of the government quarters to the allottees/occupants and hence rejected the claim of the applicants for selling the quarters under their occupation to them. The District Collector has placed reliance upon the decision of the State Government contained in their G.O.Ms. No. 121 (Transport, Roads & Buildings), dated 5.4.1983 wherein the request of the federation of Government Employees City Residents Association for sale of the government quarters in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad on hire purchase basis to the respective occupants has been rejected by the State Government. Further, when the retired government employees who were continuing in government quarters in Kurnool city also made a similar request, the State Government has declined to consider their cases for such sale of the government quarters and passed orders through G.O. Ms. No. 329, G.A., dated 14.6.1983. Based upon these two decisions of the state Government, the District Collector, Mahabubnagar, through the impugned proceedings dated 29.6.1997 rejected the claim of the petitioners for selling to them the quarters under their occupation on hire purchase basis. The case of the writ petitioners is that they have been in occupation of the quarters for a very long time and the State Government had failed to take note of the fact that it is they who have been maintaining the quarters all through and that they have been paying the rentals regularly and that the capital cost of a two room tenament in the year 1949, when these houses have been got constructed was about Rs.5,000/- whereas they have paid nearly four times more of the said value in the form and shape of rentals and hence the orders of the District Collector needed to be interfered with. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the District Collector, Mahabub Nagar. He has reiterated that the quarters which have been constructed by the City Improvement Board have all now been entrusted to the R&B Department of the State Government for their maintenance and upkeep and it is the District Collector who has been authorised by the State Government through their orders contained in G.O. Ms. No. 949, Social Welfare Department, dated 12.9.1974 to allot these quarters to the needy employees of the State Government occupying low income group posts and in pursuance of such order, the District Collector has allotted the quarters and inspite of retiring from service and consequently requiring to surrender the quarters, the occupants have not been vacating the quarters and were continuing to occupy the same and that in the absence of any policy decision for allotting the government quarters in favour of its occupants on hire purchase basis, the government quarters cannot be sold in favour of the occupants. The District Collector has also alleged that some of the quarters have been illegally occupied, without any orders of allotment. The State, as a part of developing infrastructure, would be constructing the residential accommodation so as to enable its servants to occupy the same so that they can be saved of the hassles and bother of entering into lease arrangements with landlords of private houses. Further, a good quality and decent kind of accommodation befitting the status of a government servant, if made available by the State, would help the government servant to better concentrate on discharge of his functions, instead of worrying about their rental accommodations and the associated hasseles and thus contribute to the quality of the state’s services. Therefore, the State Government spends its precious financial resources and expends it’s other resources such as government land and constructs thereon quarters for being utilised as residential accommodation by government servants. It is for the State Government to utilise such an infrastructure, in a manner considered appropriate by it. In case, the State Government has taken a policy decision to offer the quarters constructed by it for sale either on outright or on deferred payment or on hire purchase basis, such a decision perhaps can be asked to be given effect to or implemented. In the absence of any such decision, the State Government cannot be compelled to frame any such policy decision and then implement it. It is open to the State Government to take stock of the requirements of its servants and in case, it comes to the conclusion that the government quarters constructed by them are far in excess of the required numbers and it would be appropriate to dispose of such quarters by way of transfer, by sale or by entering into a hire purchase agreement, it is for the State Government to take such a decision. When the writ petitioners have approached this court by instituting WP No. 13846 of 1986, substantially for the very same relief, the said writ petition has been dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to seek the State Government to extend the benefits available under G.O. Ms. No. 57, Housing Department, dated 23.6.1964 to them. However, no such decision has been taken by the State Government to extend any such benefits in favour of the writ petitioners. In the absence of any such decision, it is not open to the writ petitioners, to insist that quarters under their occupation have to be willy nilly sold to them. I do not find any such right existing in the hands of an occupant of a government quarter to insist that the same should be sold to him, in recognition of his long stint of occupation of such quarters or it’s upkeep. Occupation of quarters by the government servants is only by way of a licence/permission granted for such occupation. Therefore, the occupant can claim no right for acquiring such a quarter. The fact remains that the writ petitioners are all in occupation of these quarters for a very long time. Therefore, its appropriate that they must be given a reasonable period of time to vacate lest, they will have to face the grave hardship in securing immediately alternative accommodation. For this purpose, I consider it appropriate to accord them a reasonable period of six months time. Therefore, the 2nd respondent – District Collector shall not take any measures to evict the writ petitioners till 31.3.2010. If the writ petitioners vacate the quarters under their occupation in the meantime, on their own, it is open to him or any other agency authorised by him to take back the possession. Otherwise, steps as are necessary for evicting them may be initiated only after 1st April 2010. Subject to what has been observed supra, the writ petition is dismissed as there are no merits in the matter. No costs. ------------- knk 9.10.2009