Telangana High Court
Madhuri Vennela vs State Of Telangana on 7 June, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.14558 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Housing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, and perused the record.
2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that the respondent authorities in particular respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are not following the procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 15-10-2015 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 26-11-2015 and G.O.Ms.No. 04 dated 06-11-2020 for selection of eligible beneficiaries for allotment of Double Bed Room (2BHK) Housing Program in Munipally Village and Mandal.
3. Petitioners contend that the selection of 69 persons as eligible beneficiaries vide eligible list dated 27-01-2022 issued by the 5th respondent is without conducting any Grama Sabha as required under the aforementioned Government Orders and thus, the entire process of selection of beneficiaries eligible for 2 allotment of 2 BHK houses is contrary to the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.10 Housing (RH&C.A1) Department dated 15-10-2015, and thus, liable to be set aside.
4. Petitioners contend that they are residents of Munipally village and Mandal, Sangareddy District and are all families belonging to deprived sections and all living Below Poverty Line (BPL); that petitioners families are eking out their livelihood as daily wage labourers by engaging in agriculture and other allied activities; and that the petitioners fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed for allotment of 2BHK houses.
5. Petitioners further contend that the Government of Telangana, with an intention to provide permanent/pucca houses to all the BPL / homeless families, had formulated a 2 BHK Scheme (Scheme) in October, 2015 with complete subsidy; and that in pursuance of the Scheme framed, the 1st respondent had issued G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 15-10-2015 prescribing the guidelines and eligibility criteria for selection of eligible beneficiaries of the Scheme.
3
6. Petitioners further contend that the eligibility criteria prescribed under the aforementioned G.O. for selection is that the applicant family should be a BPL family having a valid Food Security Card and living presently in huts, Katcha houses or rented houses.
7. Petitioners further contend that within a period of one month after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.10, the 1st respondent had brought out an amendment to the selection procedure mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.10 vide G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 26-11-2015; and that as per the aforementioned amendment, a District Level Committee was constituted consisting of various members for implementation of the aforesaid Scheme.
8. Petitioners further contend that as per the Scheme and guidelines issued, the District Collector of the concerned District is designated as Convener for implementation of the Scheme and is required to prepare the schedule for calling applications from the eligible beneficiaries by conducting Grama Sabha and scrutinize the applications received for preparing the list of eligible families.
4
9. Petitioners further contend that upon conducting a Grama Sabha and calling for applications from the eligible beneficiaries as per the Scheme and the guidelines issued, the list of the eligible applications received shall be forwarded to the Tahsildar for verification; and that upon verification report furnished by the Tahsildar, the District Collector was required to fix a schedule for placing the finalized list before the Grama Sabha and in the event of eligible applicants being more than the number of houses available, the selection of beneficiaries from the final list of eligible persons is to be undertaken by draw of lots.
10. Petitioners further contend that one of the conditions for being eligible to make an application under the aforesaid Scheme is that the applicant should not have been a beneficiary under any other previous Housing Schemes and should not be owning a house/plot.
11. Petitioners further contend that pursuant to the Scheme as announced by the Government of Telangana and the Government Orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.10 and 12, the 5 petitioners have submitted applications to respondent Nos.5 and 6 as the petitioners did not avail any benefit under the previous Housing Schemes.
12. Petitioners further contend that in spite of the petitioners fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Government Orders issued, the names of the petitioners were shown in the rejected list dated 08-12-2021 placed in 6th respondent office except the names of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, which were included in the eligible list at Sl.Nos.11, 16 and 20 of the said list.
13. Petitioners further contend that the respondent authorities while placing the names of petitioners excluding names of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 did not mention any reasons for rejection of names of petitioners from being considered as eligible for allotment of 2BHK houses under the Scheme.
14. Petitioners further contend that on the aforesaid list of eligible and rejected list being displayed in the office of the 6th respondent, they have made an application under the Right to Information Act seeking information as to the procedure adopted 6 for allocation of houses, total number of applications received from the eligible beneficiaries village-wise and also as to the number of houses sanctioned and allotted in Munipally village and Mandal.
15. Petitioners further contend that except petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, the applications made by the other petitioners have been shown in the rejection list; and that the respondent authorities without conducting any Grama Sabha and without following the required procedure have made changes to the eligible beneficiaries list dated 08-12-2021 and issued a new list dated 27-01-2022 whereby the authorities have even removed the names of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, who were shown in the eligible list at Sl.Nos.11,16 and 20 in the list dated 08-12-2021 without conducting any Grama Sahba as required under G.O.Ms.No.10 and 12.
16. Petitioners further contend that while the names of petitioners including petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 being shown in the list of ineligible beneficiaries issued on 27-01-2022, some of the applicants, whose names have figured in the ineligible list 7 earlier issued on 08-12-201 have found their place in the new list prepared on 27-01-2022. Petitioners contend that the respondent authorities, while excluding the names of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5 who0se names have considered in the eligible list issued on 08-12-2021 have been excluded in the eligible list issued on 27-01-2022 and on the other hand, the names of persons mentioned in the ineligible list earlier issued on 08-12-2021 have been included in the new list issued on 27-01-2022 without mentioning the reasons for their inclusion which could have done only by conducting a fresh enquiry.
17. Petitioners further contend that some of the names which are now included in the eligible list dated 27-01-2021 are concerned, the said applicants have availed benefits under the earlier Schemes and have their own houses/plots, which possession makes them ineligible for being considered.
18. Petitioners further contend that in spite of petitioners brining to the notice of the respondent authorities that ineligible persons are considered for conferring the benefit under the aforesaid Scheme by submitting representation dated 26-02-2022 8 and 11-03-2022, the said representations have not evoked any response from the respondent authorities, as a result of which the petitioners, who are otherwise eligible for being considered for allotment of houses under the Scheme are being excluded from being considered from being conferred with the benefit.
19. Counter-affidavit is filed by 5th respondent on his behalf and on also on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4.
20. By the counter-affidavit, the respondents would contend that preparation of list of eligible persons for allotment of 2 BHK houses constructed in Munipally village and Mandal of Sangareddy District has been undertaken by strictly following the selection procedure as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.10 as mended by G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 26-11-2015 and G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 06-11-2020 as a consequence of which, the eligible list of 69 persons was issued vide proceedings dated 27-01-2022.
21. By the counter-affidavit, the respondents would contend that the Government had sanctioned 72 2BHK houses in Munipally village and Mandal vide proceedings dated 19-07-2019 and accordingly applications from eligible 9 beneficiaries were invited; and that 441 applications have been received from the beneficiaries.
22. The respondents further contend that on receipt of aforesaid applications, the respondent authorities have formed Teams for causing enquiry/verification of the applications and based on the aforesaid enquiry/verification by following due procedure as contemplated, the authorities have prepared the list of eligible persons and rejection list.
23. By the counter-affidavit it is contended that out of 441 applications received, 48 eligible beneficiaries list has been prepared on 11-08-2021 and placed before the Grama Sabha calling for objections.
24. The respondents further contended that on receipt of claims and objections to the list of both eligible and rejection list, the authorities have conducted re-enquiry and thereafter on 08-12-2021 have issued eligible beneficiaries list of 67 beneficiaries and placed the same before the Grama Sabha calling for objections, if any.
10
25. Respondents, by the counter-affidavit, would further contend that on receiving the claims and objections and after conducting re-enquiry, the applications of the Writ Petitioner Nos. 1 to 10 have been rejected by recording the reasons mentioned there against.
26. By the counter-affidavit, the reasons recorded for rejection of application of petitioner Nos.1, 4 and 5, whose names were found included in the eligible list dated 08-12-2021 are concerned, insofar as the case of Writ petitioner No.4 is concerned, it is stated that as per the preliminary enquiry, the said petitioner's name is included in the eligibility list at Sl.No.33 and published in Grama Panchayat office on 11-08- 2021 calling for objections, if any.
27. It is further contended that as per objections, re-enquiry has been conducted, which revealed that the 4th petitioner, after her marriage, due to family disputes came to her mother's house at Munipally village and living temporarily in her mother's house and hence, her application cannot be considered. 11
28. Similarly, in cases of petitioner Nos.5 and 6, it is stated that as per the preliminary enquiry, though the names of said petitioners is included in the eligibility list at Sl.No.28 and published in Grama Panchayat Office on 11-08-2021 calling for objection, and as per the objections and re-enquiry conducted, it revealed that the petitioner No.5 is having own house of her father and is working as Cook in Model School, thereby making her application liable to be rejected.
29. By the counter-affidavit, while reasons have been indicated for rejecting the applications of the petitioners, the respondents insofar as inclusion of persons, whose names figured in the ineligibility list earlier and now finding their way into the final eligibility list prepared on 27-01-2022, have stated that while the preliminary enquiry revealed that the applicant is having own house and two wheeler vehicle and accordingly rejected her application included in the ineligibility list dated 08-12-2021, however, after conducting re-enquiry, it revealed that the applicant is poor and due to family disputes with her husband, living in mother's house and as such, her name was included in the eligibility list dated 27-01-2022.
12
30. Same reasons were mentioned insofar as the inclusion of names of beneficiaries, whose names were found in the ineligibility list dated 08-12-2021.
31. By stating as above in the counter-affidavit, respondents have justified their action by contending that the aforesaid process of selection was undertaken in a transparent manner by conducting Grama Sabha on 11-08-2021 and 08-12-2021 and finally again on 27-01-2022, whereby the final list of 69 eligible benefits for allotment of 2 BHK house out of 72 sanctioned houses was undertaken by drawl of lots in the presence of District Level Committee.
32. In reply to the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit.
33. By the reply affidavit, petitioners have denied the claim of respondent authorities of conducting Grama Sabha on the three dates as mentioned in the counter-affidavit.
34. Petitioners, by the reply affidavit, further contended that as per the information obtained by them under Right to Information Act with regard to the Grama Sabha held and minutes recorded, 13 the extract copies of the Grama Sabha minutes register furnished to the petitioners does not show any Grama Sabha being held on the said dates as being claimed by the respondents.
35. By the reply affidavit, petitioners further contend that while the respondent authorities have rejected the application of petitioner No.4 by mentioning the reason that she is living with her mother at her mother's house at Munipally village on account of her marriage and due to family disputes, on the same said ground, the respondent authorities have considered the application of Smt. Boini Laxmi in the final list prepared on 27-01-2022.
36. Petitioners by the reply affidavit have further claimed that the names of the beneficiaries, which have found their way into the final eligibility list dated 27-01-2022 are all otherwise ineligible, as they or their husbands own agricultural land, houses, residential plot, husbands being employed in a limited Company, own and running a business and having availed the benefit under the earlier Housing Schemes.
14
37. Thus, petitioners contend that in the absence of any Grama Sabha being held as claimed by respondents in the counter- affidavit on the dates indicated and inasmuch as there has been no re-enquiry as sought to be contended, the process of selection of the beneficiaries adopted as mentioned in the eligible list is contrary to the guidelines issued under the Scheme and therefore, the authorities by including the names of the ineligible beneficiaries in the final list dated 27-01-2022 have excluded the names of petitioners, who are otherwise eligible for being considered as beneficiaries under the Scheme.
38. I have taken note of respective contentions urged.
39. While it is the claim of the petitioners that the respondents did not conduct Grama Sabha on the dates mentioned by them in the counter-affidavit viz., 11-08-2021, 08-12-2021 and 27-01-2022, while the respondents claim to have prepared the list by holding Grama Sabha. Thus, this Court, by its order dated 01-08-2022 directed the learned Government Pleader for Revenue to produce before this Court the register of Grama Sabha and also the related record to show that proper publicity 15 was given before conduct of Grama Sabha on 11-08-2021, 08-12-2021 and 27-01-2022 as per Section 6 read with Section 32 and 43 of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short the Act, 2018), which casts a duty on the Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary to maintain the record.
40. In furtherance of the aforesaid direction, on 03-08-2022 learned Government Pleader for Revenue has produced before this Court two loose papers, which are stated to be the minutes of Grama Sabha held on 11-08-2021 and 08-12-2021 as handed over to him by Sri A.Veeresam, Deputy Tahsildar of Grama Pancyhayat Munipally village.
41. Further, it is also stated that no proceedings of final Grama Sabha dated 27-01-2022 is available. Further, no record has been placed before this Court in relation to the publicity that was given for conduct of Grama Sabha as required under the Rules before conducting such Grama Sabha by causing display of the scheduled meeting in the notice board of Grama Panchayat and also by beat of drum as mandated under G.O.Ms.No.162 dated 04-04-1997.
16
42. On the learned Government Pleader for Revenue placing before this Court the two loose paper sheet claiming it to be the minutes of the Grama Sabha dated 11-08-2021 and 08-12-2021, this Court had taken on record the copies of the same by returning back the originals to the learned Government Pleader, who in turn were handed over the same to the Deputy Tahsildar, who was present in the Court.
43. Though the respondent authorities have claimed of conducting Grama Sabha on the three (3) dates i.e. 11-08-2021, 08-12-2021 and again on 27-01-2022 whereat the final list of eligible beneficiaries having been issued, since the minutes of two (2) Grama Sabhas as placed before this Court is not in the form of a Register which is usually maintained by the 6th respondent, no credibility can be given to the alleged minutes of the meeting particularly having regard to the fact that the respondent authorities in reply to the RTI application made by the petitioners have furnished the extracts of the minutes of the meetings of Grama Sabha Register, which indicates the same to be in a register format.
17
44. Further, the claim of the respondents that the minutes of the final Grama Sabha meeting whereat the final list of beneficiaries having been published not being made available to this Court, this Court is of the view that an adverse inference can be drawn on the conduct of the respondent authorities in not adhering to the procedure laid down under G.O.Ms.No.10 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.12 for selection of eligible beneficiaries.
45. Further, as per the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.10 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.12, the list finalized by the Tahsildar is required to be placed in the Grama Sabha/Ward Sabha for conduct of drawl of lots to select beneficiaries for sanction of 2BHK houses and drawl of lots can be done as per the caste composition given by the District Collector for that particular Grama Panchayat/ULB (Ward), and thereafter the list finalized by drawl of lots is required to be placed before the District Level Committee for approval and after approval, the District Collector is required to issue sanction orders.
46. Since the respondents authorities have not shown to this Court of the final list dated 27-01-2022 being placed before the 18 Grama Sabha for conduct of drawl of lots to select beneficiaries and thereafter the same being placed before the District Level Committee for its approval and thereafter the District Collector issuing sanction orders, the claim of the respondents by their counter-affidavit that 69 beneficiaries as per list dated 27-01-2022 being allotted 2 BHK houses out of the sanctioned 72 houses, cannot be accepted as in compliance with the procedure to accept the statement made to this Court by the respondent authorities.
47. Further, it is also to be noted that the petitioners, by their detailed representations submitted on 26-02-2022 and 11-03-2022, had brought to the notice of the authorities that some of the beneficiaries having availed the benefit under the previous Housing Schemes, which makes them ineligible from being considered as eligible beneficiaries under the present Scheme as per G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 06-11-2020. The non- consideration of the said representations by the respondent authorities and in fact remaining silent with regard to the aforesaid representations submitted, in the counter-affidavit filed only goes to show that the respondent authorities were conscious 19 of the aforesaid fact and did not intend to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners as the same would result in excluding the otherwise ineligible persons who have been included in the final list for being considered for conferring the benefit under the present Scheme.
48. Further, it is also to be noted that the 5th respondent, who had sought to place before this Court two loose paper sheets claiming the same to be the minutes of the Grama Sabha dated 11-08-2021 and 08-12-2021, which loose sheets are neither serially numbered nor forming part of any record which is normally required to be maintained in a proper form, has tried to give an impression to this Court of the authorities having followed the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.Nos.10 and 12 for selection of eligible beneficiaries in a transparent manner.
49. As the counter-affidavit filed by the 5th respondent is on behalf of himself and on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, and 3rd respondent being the District Collector himself, ought to have verified the statement made by the 5th respondent on his behalf also before this Court, which the said authorities has failed to do. 20 Thus, the entire action of the respondent authorities appears to this Court as a camouflage to cover up their action of not adhering to the procedure prescribed for selection of eligible beneficiaries to confer the benefit under the Scheme and it amounts to misleading this Court by making wrong statement on oath and call for initiation of action against the concerned officials.
50. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the respondent authorities of the said authorities adhering to the procedure prescribed for selecting the eligible beneficiaries for conferring the benefit under the Scheme is moonshine and self- serving and does not instill any kind of confidence in this Court for accepting it as a valid claim.
51. Thus, this Court is of the view that the alleged final list dated 27-01-2022 stated to have been published in Grama Sabha dated 27-01-2022 and thereafter being approved by the District Level Committee and the 3rd respondent issuing sanction order, cannot be held as a valid list.
21
52. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed; the final list dated 27-01-2022 is set aside; and the respondent authorities are directed to identify the eligible beneficiaries afresh from and out of the applications numbering to 441 received earlier by conducting proper enquiry as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.10 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.12 and also G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 15-10-2015, 26-11-2015 and 06-11-2020 respectively.
53. Before parting with the case, this Court would like to express its dissatisfaction on the acts of respondent authorities in dealing with the matter, particularly the counter-affidavit, wherein the 5th respondent had deposed on his behalf and also on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4, had stated to have held Grama Sabha on 27-01-2022 without placing the minutes of the same and stating the same to be not available; and the minutes of the Grama Sabha dated 11-08-2021 and 08-12-2021 as placed before this Court being in loose papers without any authenticity for it to be considered as valid record being maintained by the Grama Panchayat as minutes of the meeting of Grama Sabha held on the said dates. Thus, this Court is of the view that the 1st respondent should be directed to initiate disciplinary action 22 against all the concerned authorities, who had made the aforesaid statement to this Court by their counter-affidavit and make necessary entries in their Service Records.
54. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 07.06 .2024 Vsv