Telangana High Court
Banoth Sampath Kumar vs The Telangana State Power Generation ... on 6 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.23488 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo in R.C.No.K/250/2011, dt 09-05-2011 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue land loser certificate to enable the petitioner to claim employment as per the rehabilitation scheme."
2. Heard Sri P.Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. V.Uma Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revenue authorities have granted assignment patta in favour of the petitioner's mother namely Smt. Banothu Hachi wife of Sri B.Balu to an extent of Ac 1-20 gts., in Sy.No.84/4 of Suraram Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District (presently Badhradri Kothagudem District) after following due procedure contemplated under 2 law in the year 1991 and since then, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and eking out her livelihood. While things stood thus, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha resumed the land to an extent of Ac 198-12 ¼ gts ., along with petitioner's land for the purpose of construction of Northern Ash Pond to the KTPS, Palvancha and passed resumption order vide proceedings R.C.No.N/1449/2002, dated 07.06.2003. He further submits that the petitioner's mother died on 02.07.2010 due to ill health. His father is an illiterate and doing daily coolie works and he is not well versed with the legal proceedings. The petitioner's father submitted application on 27.04.2011 before respondent No.3 requesting him to issue land losers certificate with an intension to submit an application under G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 15.04.1986 seeking employment in respondent No.1 Corporation.
4. The learned counsel further contended that respondent No.3 without properly considering the application, passed impugned memo dated 09.05.2011 basing upon the instructions issued by respondent No.2 only rejected the application without assigning any 3 reasons. He further contended that respondent No.3 had issued land losers certificate to similarly situated persons viz., Smt. Podiam Ramana w/o Apparao on 29.01.2011 and Smt.Podium Nagamma w/o Veeraswamy on __.02.2011, their lands were also resumed through very same proceedings dated 07.06.2003. Hence, the impugned rejection order passed by respondent No.3 is discriminative nature and offend to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner had approached this Court and filed Writ Petition questioning the impugned memo issued by respondent No.3 dated 09.05.2011 after lapse of more than seven years and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. He further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.98, the petitioner has to submit application within a period of one year from the date of displacement. On the other hand, the petitioner's father submitted application on 27.04.2011 after lapse of seven years. Respondent No.3 rightly issued memo dated 09.05.2011 and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief much less the relief sought in the present Writ Petition. 4
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has not sought any relief against the respondent No.1 and he questioned the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 issued by respondent No.3 only. Hence, the Writ Petition may be dismissed against the respondent No.1.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and also after perusal of the material available on record it reveals that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha, granted assignment patta in favour of the petitioner's mother namely Smt.Banothu Hachi to an extent of Ac 1-20 gts, in Sy.No.84/4 situated at Suraram Village, Palvancha Mandal, Khammam District in the year 1991. It is also undisputed fact that the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha resumed the above said land along with others land for the public purpose for construction of Northern Ash Pond to KTPS, Palvancha vide Proceedings Rc.No.N/1449/2002, dated 07.06.2003. Thereafter, Father of the petitioner namely B.Balu submitted application on 27.04.2011 before respondent No.3 requesting him to issue land loser certificate. The 5 respondent No.3 rejected the same through the impugned order dated 09.05.2011 on the ground that application has not submitted within the stipulated time.
8. It is very much relevant to place on record that respondent No.3 had issued land losers certificate in favor of the similarly situated persons viz., Smt. Podiam Ramana w/o Apparao to an extent of Ac 2-12 gts in Sy.Nos.96/1, 97/8 and 98/7 situated at Patha Suraram Village, Palvancha Mandal and Smt.Podium Nagamma w/o Veeraswamy to an extent of Ac 2-13 gts in Sy.No.97/10, 96/3 situated at Patha Suraram Village, Palvancha Mandal, whose lands were resumed through very same proceedings by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Palvancha on 07.06.2003. Hence, the impugned rejection order passed by respondent No.3 amounts to violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
9. The petitioner pleaded in the sworn affidavit that at the time of acquisition of the land he was minor and his father is an illiterate and doing coolie work and his mother died due to ill health on 02.07.2010. After attaining majority, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.
10. It is also relevant to place on record that in 6 W.P.No.11726 of 2013, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad disposed of the Writ Petition on 25.03.2022, wherein held that for granting land losers certificate, the period of one year delay caused in filing such application not being a period of limitation statutorily, can be waived depending upon the genuineness of the cause for not approaching earlier. In the case on hand, the petitioner specifically pleaded that the petitioner's father is an illiterate and not well versed with the proceedings and he could not submit application immediately as soon as after displacement. It is already stated supra that respondent No.3 issued land loser certificates in the month of January and February, 2011 to similarly situated persons.
11. In view of the foregoing reasons, the impugned rejection memo passed by respondent No.3, dated 09.05.2011 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside, and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to consider the application dated 27.04.2011 submitted by the petitioner's father and issue land loser certificate within a period of two(02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO 06.06.2024 sa