Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Perla Kasulu, Visakhapatnam Dist 3 ... vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad 5 ... on 18 July, 2020
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO
Writ Petition No.10890 of 2016
ORDER:
The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not providing (i) alternative site for construction of church along with balance structural compensation as per reassessment done by respondent authorities; (ii) provide funds for construction of church as per letter of 2nd respondent dated 31.03.2015
(iii) separate sites to the major children of the 1st petitioner along with house construction package as requested in the representation dated 18.12.2015 of petitioners; (iv) alternative habitable site in the place of defective site allotted to 2nd petitioner and (v) employment to the 3rd and 4th petitioners as per their qualification as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300A of Constitution of India and for a consequential direction.
2. The petitioners' case is thus:
(a) The petitioners are owners of an extent of Ac.2.65 cents in S.No.268/2, 268/4, 292/3 & 293 of Pudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The 1st petitioner purchased Ac.1.50 cents in 1994 under a registered Sale Deed and the remaining Ac.1.15 cents of land is B Form patta land. The petitioners raised cashew nut crop in some part of the land and in the remaining part, they constructed AC sheet roof in an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, thatched roof in an extent of 2 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 Ac.0.95 cents and constructed a church in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents of land with the permission of concerned authorities.
(b) While so, the land of petitioners along with structures was acquired by the Government for setting up of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) vide notification in A.P. Gazette No.15 dated 08.02.2006. At the time of acquisition, the respondent authorities promised that apart from usual compensation to the land and structures, the petitioners would be provided alternative site of Ac.0.05 cents each, with necessary rehabilitation package. Thereafter, the respondents have demolished the residential houses and church of the petitioners without providing alternative residential houses and also the site for construction of church as promised. The petitioners have been residing in rented accommodation.
(c) The petitioners were paid an amount of Rs.4,10,401/- each for an extent of Ac.0.75 cents each of the zeroyati dry lands of the petitioners under the award dated 02.01.2008. Remaining extent of government poramboke land is concerned, compensation was awarded to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents but no compensation was awarded for the remaining Ac.0.95 cents. Further, the house site of Ac.0.05 cents allotted to 2nd petitioner is not fit for construction of a house as the northern boundary of the site is a river. Hence, a representation was made to Deputy Collector, APIIC, Atchutapuram for granting alternative site.3
UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016
(d) The further case of petitioner is that 1st petitioner is a Pastor and he constructed a church by name "Gospel of Peace and Prayer Ministries" and he used to preach to the devotees of Pudi village. At the time of acquisition the authorities promised that they would provide alternative site to him for constructing another church. When they failed to do so, the 1st petitioner made a representation dated 23.03.2014 to 2nd respondent for providing site for church. The 2nd respondent by his letter dated 31.12.2014 directed the Tahsildar/ 5th respondent to enquire into the matter. He filed a report vide his letter dated 31.03.2015 stating that compensation of Rs.1,06,281/- was already paid for structures including the church and therefore, the request of the first petitioner cannot be considered and further, the Pudi Village was not yet shifted by then. So the request of 1st petitioner was not considered till date. While so, the 3rd respondent addressed a letter dated 04.04.2015 to 6th respondent stating that pursuant to the proceedings of District Collector, land was earmarked for construction of temples/mosques/churches for three villages i.e., Pudi, Chippada and Uddapalem. Pursuant to the said letter another letter dated 27.05.2015 was addressed to the Special Deputy Collector by APIIC asking him to take necessary action for allotting site for construction of church, but so far no action has been taken. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is deprived of a site for construction of church.
4
UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016
(e) At the time of acquisition, the respondent authorities promised employment to the educated children of the displaced persons. Though the 6th respondent by his letter dated 01.11.2013 forwarded the names of 3rd and 4th petitioners to various firms located in the SEZ for providing employment, however, so far no employment is provided to them.
(f) At the time of acquisition, the petitioners were awarded structural compensation of Rs.1,06,218/- without proper assessment. On the petitioners' representation, the Executive Engineer inspected the property and reassessed the compensation to Rs.3,91,104/-. However, balance compensation has not been paid to the petitioners. The petitioners have been making requests and submitting representations to the respondents, but of no use.
Hence, the writ petition.
3. The 3rd respondent, who is the Special Grade Deputy Collector, APIIC, R & R, Atchutapuram, and 4th respondent, who is the Special Deputy Collector, L&A, APIIC, Visakhapatnam, filed separate counters more or less with similar averments. The counter allegations are thus:
(a) The Executive Director (Estates), APIIC, Hyderabad sent a requisition for acquisition of private land of Ac.230.08 cents in Pudi Village of Rambilli Mandal for establishment of a SEZ. For administrative convenience the total extent of land has been divided into 6 Blocks i.e., Blocks 14 to 19 and the writ petition mentioned land is a part of Ac.45.88 cents in Block No.14 and the said land was 5 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 acquired vide award No.1/2008 dated 02.01.2008 by the then LAO and SGDC, APIIC, SEZ Unit I, Visakhapatnam by following due procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(b) The compensation is concerned, the authorities paid @ Rs.5.00 lakhs per acre for both wet and dry lands as a package deal.
The then LAO also paid the compensation for value of trees and structures to the awardees.
(c) So far as the petitioners are concerned, land of Ac.0.75 cents each of petitioners 1 & 2 was acquired and they too were paid compensation @ Rs.5.00 lakhs per acre as per package deal and the compensation for value of the trees and structures was also paid as shown below:
Name of the Survey Extent Class Rate per Land Struct Tree Total S Awardees No. in Ac. ificat Ac. In Rs. Value ure Valu Compens l. ion value e ation N 10+11+ o 12 .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Perla 268-2 0.3 Dry 5,00,000 1,50,000 0 0 1,50,000 Gantalamma W/o.Kasulu 2 --do-- 268-4 0.18 Dry 5,00,000 90,000 0 0 90,000 3 --do-- 292-3 0.275 Dry 5,00,000 1,37,500 32,901 0 1,70,401 TOTAL 3,77,500 32,901 4,10,401 6 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 S Name of the Survey Extent Class Rate per Land Struc Tree Total l. Awardees No. in Ac. ificat Ac. In Rs. Value ture Value Compens N ion value ation o 10+11+ . 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 Perla Kasulu, 268-2 0.3 Dry 5,00,000 1,50,000 0 0 1,50,000 S/o.Tatalu 2 --do-- 268-2 0 Dry 5,00,000 - 0 31,716 31,716
--do-- 268-2 0.18 Dry 5,00,000 90,000 4862 0 94,862
4 --do-- 268-2 0 Dry 5,00,000 0 0 29,954 29,954 5 --do-- 292-3 0.275 Dry 5,00,000 1,37,500 0 0 1,37,500 6 --do-- 292-3 0 Dry 5,00,000 0 0 40,526 40,526 TOTAL 3,77,500 4862 1,02,196 4,84,558
(d) Further, the 1st petitioner encroached upon the Government land in S.No.293 of Pudi Village and constructed a church. The said land has also been alienated to APIIC for SEZ and the value of structure i.e., the church was paid to the writ petitioners @ Rs.1,06,281/- vide cheque No.224980 dated 21.02.2011 as valued by the Executive Engineer, R&B, Visakhapatnam. Having received the above compensation amounts, the 1st petitioner during the Prajavani programme conducted by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam on 30.03.2015, has filed a petition requesting to measure his land in S.No.292/3 and the structures existing thereon and fix the compensation. At his request, the matter was referred to Executive Engineer, R&B, Visakhapatnam for revaluation of the structures vide office Rc.No.94/2015/JA dated 30.04.2015. The Executive Engineer in turn revalued the structures existed on the acquired land as per the 7 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 SSR rates prevailing in the year 2015 and fixed the amount @ Rs.3,91,104.35 ps. The petitioners are not entitled for the differential amount for the reason that the acquisition was taken place in the year 2008 and the land and structures were valued as per the rates in vogue and compensation was already paid to petitioners. Long thereafter, in the year 2015, on the request of first petitioner again revaluation was made basing on SSR rates of the year 2015. This fact was reported to the Collector, Visakhapatnam vide Rc.No.94/2015/JA dated 31.07.2015.
(e) Having been not satisfied, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court referred the case to Lokadalat wherein a direction was given to Special Deputy Tahsildar, R&R, APIIC to provide R&R package to the major sons of the first petitioner and allot house sites to the eligible PDFs and provide alternative site for construction of church. Pursuant to the said direction, Sri Perla Raju, Perla Vijaya Kumar and Perla Abenezer, the sons of petitioners 1 & 2 were paid R&R package @ Rs.1,75,000/- each and were sanctioned house site pattas under
major son category to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents each in Veduruwada layout in S.No.3, 5, 10, 12 & 14. The 2nd petitioner was allotted Plot No.760 by the Village Committee headed by Pudi Sarpanch and other development committee members of Veduruwada layout. The said plot No.760 is quite suitable for construction of residential house and the neighbouring assignees have already constructed their residential 8 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 houses and living there with their families and there are no such complaints from them as alleged by the petitioners. Hence, the contentions in the writ petition are untenable.
(f) Further, as per the agreement entered into between the fishermen, JAC of Pudimadaka Village and Brandix Apparel India Limited, Atchutapuram during the course of laying pipeline by the said company, the latter agreed to pay compensation @ Rs.1.00 lakh each in lieu of employment. The 1st petitioner, who is the head of the family and holder of white ration card, received Rs.1.00 lakh vide cheque No.712587 dated 30.01.2012 claiming as a resident of Pudimadaka Village of Atchutapuram Mandal. Since 3rd and 4th petitioners got RAP card, they were not entitled to claim employment assistance.
(g) So far as the plea for allotment of alternative site for construction of church and providing funds made by the petitioners is concerned, as per the instructions issued in Collector's Rc.No.520/2015/R&R dated 31.03.2015 the matter was addressed to the Zonal Manager, SEZ, APIIC who in turn, through his letter No.ZM/APIIC/SPZ/Veduruwada/2005 dated 27.05.2016 reserved site in an extent of 1000 sq. yards in S.No.3 of Veduruwada for construction of temples, mosques, church, community halls etc. There were some rival petitions filed against the 1st petitioner in Meekosam programme by 4 local Pudi PDFs belonging to Christian community and they were directed to approach along with 1st petitioner before the Village Committee to decide the church site for 9 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 the benefit of Christians. The respondents thus contended that due compensation and R&R package were paid to the petitioners and other awardees and the petitioners have no cause to file the instant writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same.
4. It is to be noted that for some time the petitioners prosecuted the writ petition as parties in person and 1st petitioner used to represent their case. Later they engaged a counsel. Heard the arguments of Sri S.Laxminarayana Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition representing the respondents 1 to 5, and Sri P.Roy Reddy, Standing Counsel for 6th respondent.
5. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in this writ petition to allow?
6. Point: Admittedly, the Executive Director (Estates), APIIC, Hyderabad sent requisition for acquisition of private land of Ac. 230.08 cents in Pudi (V) of Rambilli Mandal for establishment of SEZ under Phase II. For administrative convenience the total extent of the land has been divided into 6 blocks in Phase II i.e., block Nos.14 to
19. It is a further admitted fact that the land and structures which were acquired from petitioners form part of Ac.45.88 cents in block No.14 and the same was acquired vide award No.1/2008 dated 02.01.2008 by the then LAO as per Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is in this context, what is germane for consideration is what is the extent of the land and the superstructures belong to the petitioners which were acquired by the respondent authorities and whether just 10 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 compensation and R&R package was provided to the petitioners on par with other persons whose properties were acquired.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of an extent of Ac.2.65 cents in S.Nos.268/2, 268/4, 292/3 and 293 of Pudi Village, Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Out of the said extent, 1st petitioner is said to have purchased Ac.1.50 cents in the year 1994 under a registered Sale Deed and the remaining extent of Ac.1.15 cents is a B Form land. It is also their further case that the petitioners raised cashew nut crop in some part of the land and in other extent, he raised A.C. sheet roof to an extent of Ac.0.12 cents, thatched roof in an extent of Ac.0.95 cents and constructed church in Ac.0.40 cents of land. The church, according to the petitioners, was constructed by obtaining necessary permission from concerned authorities and registered under Societies Registration Act vide Society Registration No.67/2012 dated 08.02.2012.
8. That being the details of the property, the petitioners' case is that so far as zeroyati land of Ac.1.50 cents purchased by 1st petitioner is concerned, petitioners were paid compensation. While the petitioners in paragraph No.4 of the writ petition averred that they were paid @ Rs.4,10,401/- each for an extent of Ac.0.75 cents each of their zeroyati dry lands, the respondents in their counter pleaded that the 1st petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.4,84,558/- for his land of Ac.0.75 cents including the trees and structures thereon and 2nd petitioner was paid an amount of Rs.4,10,401/- for her Ac.0.75 cents of land and towards the value of the structures. Thus, though there is 11 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 a variance in the quantum of compensation mentioned by the respective parties in respect of zeroity land of Ac.1.50 cents and structures thereon, by and large, it appears the petitioners were satisfied with the said compensation and in the instant writ petition they did not make any claim in respect of the said property. Therefore, the main thrust of the petitioners is in respect of other property i.e., Ac.1.15 cents of Government poramboke and structures thereon. The petitioners' case is that they occupied the said poramboke land and in a part of it i.e., in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents they constructed a church and also raised two thatched sheds in a part of the remaining extent. These properties are also subject matter of acquisition. Therefore, in the present writ petition the claims of the petitioners are precisely:
(i) Alternative site for Church along with balance compensation as per the reassessment done by the respondent authorities.
(ii) to provide funds for construction of Church as per letter of 2nd respondent, dated, 31-3-2015
(iii) to provide separate sites to the major children of the petitioners along with construction package as requested in the petitioners representation to the 3rd respondent dated 18-12-2015.
(iv) to provide employment to 3rd and 4th petitioners as per their education, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper.
(v) to provide alternative habitable site in the palce of the defective house site allotted to the 2nd petitioner. 12
UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 Thus, the justification of the above claims is to be tested on the legal anvil in the instant writ petition.
9. Claims 1 & 2: These claims relate to payment of balance compensation as per reassessment done by the respondent authorities and to provide alternative site for construction of church and funds for construction of the church as per the letter of 2nd respondent dated 31.03.2015.
(a) The petitioners' case is that 1st petitioner is a Pastor by profession and he constructed a church by name "Gospel of Peace and Prayer Ministries" in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents in S.No.292/3 of Pudi Village said to be purchased by petitioners 1 & 2 under a registered Sale Deed dated 28.03.2002. A small portion of the church was constructed in 582 sq. feet in the land in S.No.293 which was granted to 1st petitioner by the Government. The church was constructed with the permission of Gram Panchayat and later got registered the church under Societies Registration Act vide certificate of registration No.67/2012 issued by Registrar of Societies and District Registrar, Anakapalli. He was preaching sermons in the said church. The land covered by the church and other lands of the petitioners were acquired with a promise that the respondent authorities would provide compensation for structural value of the church and alternative site for construction of another church. It is contended that, however, the respondent authorities paid a paltry amount of Rs.1,06,281/- for the structural value of church and two thatched houses and alternative site was not provided so far for construction of church. Their further case 13 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 is that the structural valuation was not properly made. Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 31.03.2015 to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam in Prajavani programme for providing alternative site for construction of church and also for providing funds and for reassessment of the compensation. The record shows that the Executive Engineer (R&B), Visakhapatnam got reassessed the AC sheet roof shed and thatched houses and submitted report dated 10.06.2015 valuing the property at Rs.3,91,104.35 ps. The petitioners' contention is that they are entitled to the differential amount as they were paid only Rs.1,06,218/-. Whereas the contention of the respondents is that the valuation was made by Executive Engineer (R&B) at the instance of the District Collector, Visakhapatnam during the year 2015 taking into consideration the SS rates prevailing in the year 2015. However, the acquisition was done during the year 2008 and therefore, the valuation of the structures was made by the respondent authorities taking into consideration the prevailing rates by then and amount was paid to petitioners by way of cheque in the year 2011 itself and therefore, the valuation made in the year 2015 will have no application.
(b) In this context, a perusal of the proceedings in Rc.No.294/2009/SA dated 21.02.2011 of Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam would show that during field inspection, the two thatched houses and AC sheeted shed were identified on ground in S.No.293 which belonged to 1st petitioner and they were valued at Rs.1,18,484/- and after deducting the applicable TDS and education 14 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 cess, the balance amount of Rs.1,06,281/- was paid to the petitioners by the RDO, Narsipatnam by way of cheque dated 21.02.2011 drawn on SBI, Pudimadaka in favour of 1st petitioner. Having thoroughly scrunitized the facts and record, I agree with the contention of the respondents. They assessed the value of the superstructures during the relevant period of acquisition and paid due compensation. Whereas, the Executive Engineer (R&B), Visakhapatnam made the assessment during the year 2015 basing on the prevailing rates at that time. Hence, the said value cannot be taken into consideration and consequently the petitioners cannot claim the differential amount. It should be noted that though the petitioners claimed that the assessment at the first instance was not made properly to arrive at an amount of Rs.1,06,281/-, however, they did not produce any record to substantiate their contention.
(c) Then the claim relates to the alternative site for construction of church is concerned, as stated supra the petitioners' case is that they constructed church in Ac.0.40 cents. However, the respondents 3 & 4 in their counters emphatically stated that the plinth area of the AC sheet roofed church was only 582.12 sq. feet as valued by the Executive Engineer, R & B during the year 2009. The petitioners have not produced any record to show that they constructed the church in such vast extent of Ac.0.40 cents. Further, the photos produced by the petitioners along with material papers show that the church was constructed in a small extent and thus support the contention of the respondents. Therefore, in my 15 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 considered view, if at all the petitioners are entitled to an alternative site, that is only to an extent of 582.12 sq. feet. The eligibility is concerned, the first petitioner made a representation to the District Collector, Visakhapatnam/2nd respondent for allotment of alternative site for construction of church and also for release of funds. The District Collector instructed Tahsildar, Rambilli to enquire into his representation and submit a report and accordingly, the Tahsildar submitted a report vide Rc.No.370/2014/MRI dated 31.12.2014. Thereupon the 2nd respondent addressed a letter in Rc.No.520/2015/R&R dated 31.03.2015 to 3rd respondent, a copy of which is made available in the material papers by the petitioners. The said letter shows that the Tahsildar, Rambilli in his report submitted that the 1st petitioner has migrated with his family from Pudimadaka Village of Atchutapuram Mandal in the year 2000 and constructed a church viz., Gospel of Peace and Prayer Ministries in the Government land in S.No.293 of Pudi Village after obtaining resolution from the Gram Panchayat of Pudi. The said land and other lands totalling Ac.6,143.16 cents covered by villages of Gurjapalem, Moturupalem, Pudi, Ch.V. Kondra Anandapuram and hamlets of Lalam Koduru of Rambilli Mandal were acquired by the Government for SEZ. The Tahsildar further reported that the 1st petitioner was granted an amount of Rs.1,06,281/- towards compensation/ex gratia for the aforesaid church by the RDO, Narsipatnam. So far as alternative site is concerned, the Tahsildar reported that the request of the applicant cannot be considered as the Pudi Village of Rambilli Mandal was not 16 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 shifted to rehabilitation colony at Dibbapalem/Veduruwada village of Atchutapuram Mandal.
(d) Having regard to the above report, the District Collector in his letter instructed the 3rd respondent to reserve sites for construction of temples/mosques/churches and the Village committees will decide such constructions. He further stated that the additional funds over and above the structural payment will be decided based on the proposals from the church committee. With reference to the aforesaid letter, it appears the respondents 3 & 6 have earmarked site in Veduruwada Village for construction of temple/church/mosque. So, from the above correspondence between the respondents, it is evident that though the petitioners, particularly 1st petitioner, occupied some extent of Government land without any formal assignment and constructed a church, however, for smooth completion of acquisition proceedings, it appears the respondents have paid compensation of Rs.1,06,281/- for superstructures i.e., the church and two thatched sheds. Thus, from their conduct it can be deemed that the respondents treated the petitioners as assignees in respect of the land over which they constructed the church and two thatched sheds. In that view and having regard to the decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in LAO-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division v. Mekala Pandu1, wherein it was held that assignees of the Government lands are entitled to payment of compensation on par with full owners, the respondents are obligated to allot alternative site 1 MANU/AP/0044/2004 = AIR 2004 AP 250 17 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 of an extent of 582.12 sq. feet from out of the site earmarked by respondents 3 & 6 for construction of temples/churches/mosques. Then the allocation of funds for construction of church is concerned, since the respondents have already paid Rs.1,06,281/- towards the value of structures, including the church, which is held to be a reasonable amount supra, the petitioners are not entitled to any further amount in this regard.
10. Claims 3 & 4: These claims are for petitioners 3 & 4. The petitioner prayed for separate sites to the major children of the petitioners along with construction package and also to provide employment to them as per their qualification as requested by the petitioners in their representation dated 18.12.2015 to 3rd respondent. The contention of respondents is that as per the instructions given in the Lok Adalat held at High Court to provide R&R package to the major sons of the petitioners 1 & 2 and allot house sites to the eligible PDFs, the respondents have paid R&R package of Rs.1.75 lakhs each and sanctioned Ac.0.05 cents each in Veduruwada layout to the three major sons of the petitioners 1 & 2 viz., (i) Perla Raju (ii) Perla Vijay Kumar and (iii) Perla Abenuzer. The companies are recommended to provide suitable employment to the local eligible people. These facts are not refuted by the petitioners. As such it can be said claims 3 & 4 are complied with by the respondents.
11. Claim No.5: This claim is concerned, admittedly the 2nd petitioner was granted Ac.0.05 cents of house site vide proceedings in Rc.No.713/2014B dated 28.07.2015 of Tahsildar, Atchutapuram 18 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 Mandal, Visakhapatnam. The grievance of the petitioners is that the said site is abutting to river and it is not fit for residential accommodation and therefore, an alternative site may be granted to her. The contention of respondents is that the site allotted to 2nd petitioner is very much conducive for construction of house and in fact, the other allottees have already constructed houses. A perusal of the house site patta shows that Ac.0.05 cents of site in plot No.760 in rehabilitation layout of Veduruwada village was allotted to 2nd petitioner. As rightly contended by the petitioners the northern boundary of this plot is shown as Gedda or river. Therefore, I find considerable force in the contention that the said plot is not suitable for construction of a house since the said plot is abutting to the Gedda. Hence, the respondents are obligated to provide a suitable alternative plot to 2nd petitioner.
12. In the result, this writ petition is partly allowed and the respondents are directed to
(i) Allot an extent of 582.12 sq. feet of site to the petitioners from out of the site earmarked by respondents 3 & 6 for construction of temples/churches/mosques in Veduruwada Village, or at any other suitable place in Veduruwada Village for construction of Church by the petitioners.
(ii) Allot an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of house site to 2nd petitioner in a suitable place in Veduruwada Village of Atchuthapuram Mandal by canceling the house plot No.760 19 UDPR, J W.P.No.10890 of 2016 earlier granted to her in rehabilitation layout of Veduruwada Village.
(iii) The respondents shall comply with the above directions within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
___________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Dated: 18.06.2020 MVA / MS