IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 17280 of 2001 Between: 1 Smt.S. Yellamma, W/o.S. Yellaiah, R/o.51-FF, Azad Chandrasekhar Nagar, Addagutta, East Marcdpalli, Secunderabad. 2 D. Saraiah, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o.60-FF, Azad Chandrasekhar Nagar, Addagutta, East Maredpalli, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, East Maredpally, Secunderabad. 3 Anjaneyulu, C/o. T. Manohar, Azad Chandrasekhar Nagar, Addagutta, East Maredpalli, Secunderabad. 4 B. Yadaiah, Owner of Toddy Shop, R/o. Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in re- allotting the Flat Nos.51-FF and 60-FF of Azad Chandrasekhar Nagar, Addagutta, Secunderabad, which stands in the names of the Petitioners herein, in favour of the Respondents-3 and 4, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice adn also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents -2 to 4 herein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the said Flats, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.17280 OF 2001 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the action of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, East Maredpally, Secunderabad, the second respondent herein, in re-allotting Flat Nos.51-FF and 60-FF of Azad Chandrasekhar Nagar, Addagutta, Secunderabad, in favour of respondents 3 and 4 herein. The said Flats were said to have been allotted to the petitioners earlier and the action of the second respondent in re-allotting the same to respondents 3 and 4 herein is assailed on the grounds of illegality and violation of the principles of natural justice. The aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition states as hereunder: The ﬁrst petitioner was allotted Flat No.51 in the ﬁrst ﬂoor and the second petitioner’s wife was allotted Flat No.60 in the ﬁrst ﬂoor in Plot Nos.423 and 442 of Azad Chandrasekhar Nagar, Addagutta in East Maredpally, Secunderabad. This allotment is said to have been made in the year 1992 and a speciﬁc averment is made that the petitioners have been residing in the said Flats after completing the left over work. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents 3 and 4 informed them that the said Flats were re-allotted in their names by the second respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is that the second respondent could not have re- allotted the Flats which were in their possession without cancelling their allotment by following the due procedure laid down in law and they accordingly challenge the said action and seek a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment over the subject Flats. By an order dated 14.03.2002, this Court directed status quo to be maintained as obtaining on that date. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the second respondent stating that in the year 1992 the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, issued house site pattas vide letter No.F/2019/92 dated 05.11.1992 for upliftment of the downtrodden communities. However, in the year 1997 upon the instructions of the Collector, Hyderabad, physical veriﬁcation of the 473 allottees was undertaken by the second respondent. Thereupon, the second respondent identiﬁed that only 306 beneﬁciaries out of 473 were actually residing in the huts/temporary shelters constructed by them in the slum and that the rest of them had sold away the land given to them under the pattas. When this information was given to the Collector, Hyderabad, instructions were issued that possession certiﬁcates should be given to such families which were actually staying in the slum, irrespective of possession of the house site patta certiﬁcates. Accordingly, a list of 540 beneﬁciaries was prepared in three Sections. For the ﬁrst Section, a housing scheme was implemented covering 156 tenements. The ﬁrst petitioner was initially allotted one such tenement in Plot No.423 of Azad Chandrasekhar Nagar, basing on her possession certiﬁcate, but as her father-in-law also produced such a possession certiﬁcate her case was considered to be ineligible as two members of the same family could not be given the beneﬁt basing on separate possession certiﬁcates obtained by them. On the basis of this ineligibility, it is stated that no allotment was given to the first petitioner. So far as the second petitioner is concerned, it is stated that he was not allotted any Flat in the ﬁrst Section of 540 beneﬁciaries identiﬁed. The second respondent accordingly denied that the petitioners had been allotted Flats bearing Nos.51-FF and 60- FF respectively. The pleadings referred above clearly indicate that there is no proof available on record to show that the petitioners were put in actual possession of the Flats said to have been allotted. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, it is admittedly his case that the allotment of the Flat was made in favour of his wife. Having stated so, the second petitioner did not explain as to why his wife, being the allottee, was not before this Court. Further, he does not even profess to be acting on her behalf in the present writ petition. In such circumstances, it must be held that the second petitioner does not have the locus to maintain this writ petition insofar as the alleged interest of his wife is concerned. As regards the ﬁrst petitioner, though there is material to show that there was an allotment on paper in her favour, the counter aﬃdavit explains that she was found to be ineligible on the ground that her father-in-law also produced a possession certiﬁcate. It is also the case of the second respondent that the petitioners were never allotted the subject Flats. There is no material contraindicating that the petitioners were allotted the subject Flats or were put in possession thereof. In the light of the undecided factual matrix which emerges from the pleadings and contentions raised by the parties, I am of the view that the issues sought to be raised are not amenable to adjudication by way of a writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court on 14.03.2002 shall stand dissolved. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 7th November, 2008. VGSR