IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 22282 of 2007 Between: Singaramu Vinoda, S/o.Venkatesh, R/o. Anantharam(V), Bhongir(M), Nalgonda Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda Dist, Nalgonda 2 The Assistant Collector, Bhongir, Nalgonda Dist 3 The Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal, Bhongir,Nalgonda Dist 4 The Station House Officer, Bhongir Rural Police Station, Bhongir,Nalgonda Dist 5 Chakali Narasamma, W/o.Yadagiri, Major Anantaram(V), Bhongir(M), Nalgonda Dist .....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 pass an order or direction or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing Memo No.CC/54/2007 dt.9-10-2007 holding that I have no right over the plot bearing No.15, admeasuring 210 square yards, in Sy.No.296 and 297 of Annatharaam (V) Bhongir Mandal, confirming the rights over the fifth respondent without conducting any enquire and without affording an opportunity of being heard to me as bad, illegal arbitrary, unjust and against teh principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with my peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plot bearing No.15,admeasuring 210 square yards, in Sy.No.296 and 297 of Anantharam(V), Bhongir(M), Nalgonda Dist and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Oral order: The petitioner assails the Memo dated 9-10-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, which reads as under: “In the reference 3rd cited, Tahsildar, Bhongir submitted that in 1977 housing plots were allotted to Smt Singaram Vinoda w/o Venkatesham and Chakali Narsamma and Venkatesham has constructed house and living therein. He further informed that she obtained original certificate from Chakali Narasamma and obtained possession certificate and the said certificate has been cancelled and Vinoda does not have any rights. Therefore the application of Smt Singaram Vinoda is cancelled and she is informed that she shall not give such wrong information and Smt Chakali Narsamma alone have rights and shall not cause any hindrance to Chakali Narsamma and if any such hindrances is caused criminal action would be taken against her.” The petitioner states that in 1977 the Government prepared a lay out in an extent of Ac.7-00 in Sy.Nos. 296 and 297 of Anantharam village, Bhongir Mandal, Nalgonda District for the purpose of allotting house sites to weaker sections of the society. Plot no.15 of an extent of 210 Sq. yards was allotted in favour of one Chakali Narsamma D/o Gandaiah. The petitioner claims that thereafter Narsamma put the petitioner in possession of the house site and she is in possession since then. After Narsamma D/o Gandaiah shifted to Hyderabad, the petitioner claims to have applied for permission for construction of a house in plot No.15. The Sarpanch of the village rejected the application on the ground that the allotment was not in favour of the petitioner and the patta was issued in favour of Narsamma. The petitioner then applied to the 3rd respondent for regularization of her possession or for issuance of a patta in her favour. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent on considering the petitioner’s application granted her a patta in proceedings bearing reference No.B/6643/2006 dated –09-2006 for plot No. 15 in the approved lay out. After grant of patta as above, the petitioner applied afresh to the Sarpanch for permission for construction of a house. The petitioners states that the Gram Panchayat granted domestic water connection and she is also paying the charges therefor since May, 2007 and further claims to have constructed a basement for a house. It is the further case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent claiming to be the earlier allottee of plot No.15 (by virtue of identity of her name with Chakali Narsamma d/o Gandaiah, though the 5th respondent is alleged to be Chakali Narsamma w/o Yadagiri) complained to the authorities claiming plot No.15 for herself. The petitioner further alleges that on the 5th respondent’s complaint, there was interference with her possession. On the petitioner’s enquiries, the impugned Memo was disclosed to her. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that the impugned Memo was issued by the 2nd respondent without notice or opportunity to the petitioner of being heard and it is further complained that the Memo is unilateral and violative of the due process of law. On 27-6-2008 one Bhupal Reddy asserting to be the Tahsildar of Bhongir filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. While denying the petitioner’s substantive claim to grant of a patta, on the petitioner’s specific allegation that the impugned Memo was issued without notice and opportunity to the petitioner, this counter is silent. It therefore, constitutes an evasive response in a writ petition. On being questioned by this Court about the silence in the counter-affidavit, perhaps on the persuasion of the learned Govt. Pleader, one J. Krishna Reddy claiming to be the current Tahsildar of Bhongir Mandal, filed an additional counter-affidavit on 28-4-2009 clearly admitting that the impugned Memo was passed by the 2nd respondent without notice to the affected parties and that it was issued on the representations made by the petitioner and the 5th respondent, both laying claim to plot No.15. In this counter, the 3rd respondent also pleads that on enquiry it is revealed that one Singaramu Venkatesham the husband of the petitioner was already allotted plot No.17 in the lay out whereat he had constructed a house and that is also a reason why the impugned Memo canceling the allotment in favour of the petitioner, was issued. In the 5th respondent’s counter-affidavit, per contra, it is asserted that this respondent Narsamma d/o Gandaiah was earlier allotted plot No.15 and without canceling her allotment the same plot was allotted to the petitioner, illegally. Since the impugned Memo of the 2nd respondent is admittedly issued without notice or opportunity to the petitioner, it must perish and is accordingly quashed. It is a matter of distress that the allotment of house plots was done in such a careless and negligent fashion. If the petitioner was ineligible for assignment of house plot, since her husband one Venkatesham was already assigned and allotted plot No.17 then it would be incumbent for the authorities to have verified the fact. It would contribute to greater efficiency if the District Collector initiate disciplinary proceedings against negligent Mandal Revenue Officers who grant or recommend house site plots without due and proper verification. It is time the State realized that affirmative governmental action should not form the genesis for a racket or a scam on account of such negligent assignment of house site plots. Nepotism and corruption have become endemic in the administration and the really needy among the populace are denied the benefit of affirmative governmental action on account of irrational administrative practices by authorities. Constitutional governance warrants equitable distribution of public assets. It must be remembered that public officials exercise fiduciary responsibility and are not dealing with their personal properties. With the observations above and in the light of the fact that the impugned Memo was issued without notice or opportunity to the petitioner, the same is quashed. As well established principles of natural justice have been violated in passing the impugned Memo, this Court considers it appropriate to allow the writ petition with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) of which Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) shall be paid by the official respondents jointly and severally to the petitioner and the other Rs.2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) shall be paid to the credit of the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the 1st respondent to initiate enquiry against the person or persons responsible for passing the impugned Memo without issuing a notice to the petitioner and to recover these amount of costs, so that the public exchequer is not mulcted on account of the crass inefficiency of executive action. The writ petition is allowed as above with costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 1st May, 2009. GRR