Telangana High Court
Rukhiya Begum vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 5 June, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
WRIT PETITION Nos.22920 and 27778 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Writ Petition No.22920 of 2022 is filed seeking the following relief:
'... pass an order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notices A/244/2021, dated 09.03.2022 issued by respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners herein in respect of the house site plots allotted to them in Sy. No.67 of Vallampally Village, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.'
2. Vide order dated 29.04.2022 this Court directed the respondents to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day in respect of the house site pattas granted to the petitioners till 15.06.2022 and the same was extended thereafter. 2
3. Writ Petition No.27778 of 2022 is filed seeking the following relief:
'...pass an order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the respondent No.4 vide proceedings A/244/2021, dated 31.03.2022 cancellation of house site patta certificates in Sy.
No.67/2 of Vallampally Village, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners herein in respect of the house plots allotted to them in Sy. No.67 of Vallampally Village, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District.
4. Heard Sri Nambi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Assignment.
5. Lis involved in both the Writ Petitions, the parties are one and the same, therefore, both the Writ Petitions are being decided by way of this Common Order.
6. The petitioners are residents of Narayanpet Town and District and they are landless poor. They are eking out their 3 livelihood as daily labours. They belong to below poverty line (BPL). Considering the said facts, in the year 1998, the Government has acquired land admeasuring Ac.10.70 cents in Sy. No.67 of Vallampally Village, Utkoor Mandal, the then Mahaboobnagar, for the purpose of providing house sites to 350 needy beneficiaries including the petitioners by way of land acquisition proceedings No.I/662/98, dated 12.06.1998. The said land was divided into 350 house sites and 246 pattas were distributed vide File No.B/380/1998. The petitioners were also issued with patta certificates and they were put in possession of the said plots, which were allotted to them. One of the conditions in the patta certificates is that the petitioners have to construct houses. There is no time mentioned.
7. According to the petitioners, the then MLA of Makthal Constituency has issued 'Pattana Gruha Nirman Manjuri Patram' on 31.07.2005 in favour of the petitioners and others and also sanctioned an amount of Rs.40,000/- to them for construction of the houses. According to the petitioners, they have constructed the houses by mortgaging the patta certificates in favour of Canara Bank, Narayanpet and 4 obtaining loan. They have also paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- each to the contractor for construction of the houses. The contractor failed to complete the said houses. The respondents have not provided basic requirements i.e., water and power supply to the said colony and therefore, the contractor went back. For the said reason, the petitioners have not completed the construction in the said house sites. However, 70% of the construction of the houses is completed.
8. The respondent No.4 had issued notices on 09.03.2022 to the petitioners alleging that the petitioners failed to complete the construction within the stipulated time and they have violated the conditions of the patta certificates. Therefore, the respondent No.4 has requested the petitioners to submit their explanations within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice, as to why the patta certificates issued in favour of the petitioners, shall not be cancelled. The petitioners have submitted their explanations to the said notice on 16.03.2022 reiterating the aforesaid facts. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said explanations, the respondent No.4 did not consider the same and on the other hand he tried to dispossess the petitioners from their 5 respective plots. Therefore, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.22920 of 2022 and this Court granted interim order dated 29.04.2022.
9. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.4 has filed counter in the said Writ Petition contending that respondent No.4 on consideration of the explanations submitted by the petitioners vide order dated 31.03.2023, he has passed resumption orders and possession of the aforesaid property was also taken under the cover of panchanama. Therefore, challenging the said resumption order, dated 31.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.4, the petitioners have filed W.P. No.27778 of 2022.
10. Respondent No.4 filed counter stating that land to an extent of Ac.20.16 guntas in Sy. No.67 of Vallampally Village, Utkoor Mandal was classified as patta land. It is very near to Narayanpet Town. For the purpose of providing house sites to the poor, the Government has acquired land to an extent of Ac.10.70 cents out of Ac.20.16 guntas by following the procedure laid down under Land Acquisition Act. The said land was divided into 350 house sites and 246 pattas were 6 distributed vide File No.B/380/1998. Out of 246 pattas, only 86 houses were constructed at pillar level in total area of Ac.3.00 guntas only and remaining area in an extent of Ac.7.70 cents was found to have been vacant and no houses were constructed till date. Even in 86 house sites, constructions were not completed.
11. As per G.O.Ms.No.546 Revenue (Q2), dated 26.04.1975, the assignees have to complete the construction within six months from the date of assignment. Thus, the petitioners have violated the patta conditions. Therefore, the respondent No.4 had issued notice dated 09.03.2022 to the petitioners calling upon explanations from them, as to why resumptions orders shall not be passed. The petitioners have submitted their explanations and the same were considered and respondent No.4 has passed resumption orders dated 31.03.2022 vide proceedings No. A/244/2021. The petitioners are aware of the same. The land in question was taken into custody of the government under the cover of panchanama. Therefore, there is no irregularity in it. The petitioners have approached this Court by suppressing material facts and with unclean hands. Therefore, with the 7 said submissions, respondent No.4 sought to dismiss both the Writ Petitions.
12. The aforesaid facts would reveal that there is no dispute that the land in Sy. No.67 of Vallampally Village was patta land and the Government has acquired the same in year 1998 for the purpose of allotting house sites to the needy people. There is also no dispute that the patta certificates were issued in favour of the petitioners. There are following five conditions in the patta certificates:
a) The house should be completed in the house site allotted.
b) The house should be constructed in the manner approved by the concerned Department.
c) At least five feet space shall be left in front of the house and open place shall be left beside the house.
d) Pattadar shall not donate, let out, mortgage or sell the allotted property without permission of the government.
e) In the event of failure of aforesaid conditions, the patta certificate will be cancelled and the property will be resumed. 8
13. Admittedly, there is no time line fixed in the said patta certificates. There is no mention with regard to the allotment of the house sites and issuance of the patta certificates under any of the scheme including G.O.Ms.No.546 Revenue (Q2), dated 26.04.1975 or under board standing orders.
14. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the then MLA has issued 'Pattana Gruha Nirman Manjuri Patram' on 31.07.2005 in favour of the petitioners and others and also sanctioned an amount of Rs.40,000/- each. They have also filed copies of the said certificates. According to them, they have obtained loan by mortgaging the said patta certificates from Canara Bank, Narayanapet Branch and paid Rs.15,000/- each to the contractor. The respondents are not providing minimum facilities such as water and power supply to the said colony, despite regular pursuance and repeated requests. However, despite the said problems, the petitioners have completed 70% of the construction work. They could not complete the balance work due to financial constraints. They have filed photographs in proof of the same. 9
15. Perusal of the said photographs would reveal that most of the petitioners have completed the said houses. According to them, the respondents are not providing minimum facilities such as water and power. Therefore, they are not in a position to complete the construction. It is relevant to mention that in the notice dated 09.03.2022, there is no specific mention about violations of any of the conditions imposed by respondent No.4 in patta certificates. As discussed supra, there is no time frame mentioned in the said patta certificates with regard to completion of construction by the petitioners. However, the respondent No.4 is relying upon G.O.Ms.No.546 Revenue (Q2), dated 26.04.1975. In the said GO also there is no time frame mentioned including six months as claimed by respondent No.4.
16. It is also relevant to mention that in the notice dated 09.03.2022, there is no reference with regard to aforesaid 'Pattana Gruha Nirman Manjuri Patram' issued by MLA on 31.07.2005 to all the petitioners under Urban Housing Construction Scheme. The amount of Rs.40,000/- was sanctioned to each of the petitioners and the details of the concerned are specifically mentioned i.e., Rs.3,000/- towards 10 subsidy by the Government, Rs.35,000/- loan from the Government and Rs.2,000/- towards the share of beneficiary. After deduction of 3% towards official expenditure, they have paid Rs.38,800/- to the petitioners. There is no consideration of the said fact in the notice dated 09.03.2022. All the petitioners have submitted their explanations on 16.03.2022. They have filed copies of the said replies/explanations submitted by them to the notice dated 09.03.2022. The respondent No.4 has received said explanations on 16.03.2022. Even in the counter filed by the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.27778 of 2022 and in the resumption order dated 31.03.2022, the respondent No.4 has admitted the said fact. But there is no consideration of the said explanations submitted by the petitioners. Even in the resumption orders dated 31.03.2022, there is no reference with regard to the explanations dated 16.03.2022 submitted by the petitioners.
17. As discussed supra, in the notice dated 09.03.2022, there is no specific mention about the alleged violations by the petitioners including the patta conditions. It is settled law that respondent No.4 has to specifically mention the alleged violations by the petitioners and whereas in the present case 11 the respondent No.4 did not specifically mention about the alleged violations by the petitioners herein.
18. As discussed supra, there is no consideration of explanations submitted by the petitioners in the resumption orders dated 31.03.2022. Viewed from any angle, the notice dated 09.03.2022 and resumption orders dated 31.03.2022 are illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.
19. The respondents have allotted house sites to the petitioners under landless poor category. By considering the fact that the petitioners are landless poor and they have no houses, the respondents cannot resume the said land without following the due procedure laid down under the law. They have to consider the patta certificates issued by the then MLA, Makthal under Urban Land Housing Scheme and sanction of Rs.38.800/-. There is no consideration of the said facts.
20. It is relevant to note that in the counter filed by the respondent No.4, it is contended that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 31.03.2022, they have to file an appeal. It is 12 further contended by respondent No.4 that the petitioners have approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing the facts. In fact, it is the specific case of the petitioners that respondent No.4 had issued notice dated 09.03.2022 without specifically mentioning the alleged violations by the petitioners and passed resumption orders dated 31.03.2022 without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the respondent No.4 has not served copy of the resumption orders dated 31.03.2022. Whereas respondent No.4 in the counter contended that when he tried to serve the copy of the resumption orders, the petitioners have refused to receive the same and therefore, the same was affixed at the conspicuous place in the presence of witnesses. However, the respondent No.4 has not filed copy of the same. Therefore, the respondent No.4 filed counter making certain allegations against the petitioners, which are contrary to the record and material. Respondent No.4 being Public Officer is expected to act in a fair and transparent manner.
13
21. Both the Central and State Governments have announced housing schemes time and again. Recently also the State Government has announced two - bed rooms housing scheme and Central Government has introduced Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana with an intention to provide house sites/houses to the houseless poor, more particularly, to the downtrodden. Having allotted the aforesaid house sites and sanction of Rs.40,000/- under Urban Housing Scheme, the respondent No.4 cannot resume the land by passing resumption orders dated 31.03.2022, which is in utter violation of principles of natural justice and without following the due procedure laid down under law, more particularly without considering the aforesaid stated facts.
22. As held by the Apex Court in Olga Tellis Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation1 and Yatam Bangaru Venkamma and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh2, Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right to life, which includes right to livelihood. Time and again the Courts not only held that Article 21 is one of the great silences of the Constitution. 1 AIR 1986 SC 180 2 2020 (5) ALD 601 (AP) 14 The right to livelihood cannot be subjected to individual fancies of the persons in authority. The sweep of the right to life conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. An important facet of that right is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation. The right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation is enshrined in Article 21 and derives its life breadth from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at least, therefore, it must include the right to live with human dignity, the right to take any action which will deprive a person of enjoyment of basic right to live with dignity as an integral part of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
23. As discussed supra, the said aspects were not considered by respondent No.4 in the notice dated 09.03.2022 and resumption orders dated 31.03.2022. Viewed from any 15 angle, the notice dated 09.03.2022 issued to the petitioners and resumption orders dated 31.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 are liable to be set aside.
24. Accordingly Writ Petition Nos.22920 of 2022 and 27778 of 2022 are allowed, thereby, the notice dated 09.03.2022 issued to the petitioners and resumption orders dated 31.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.4 are set aside. The respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from their house site plots in Sy. No.67/2 of Vallampally Village, Utkoor Mandal, Narayanpet District, without following the due procedure laid down under law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 05.06.2023 AS 16 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION Nos.22920 & 27778 OF 2022 05-06-2023 AS