K. Butchi Ramulu, Khammam Dist. v. Dist. Collecotr, Khammam And 2 Others

[ 3384 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5720 OF 2008 Between:

K. Butchi Ramulu S/o. Bakkaiah Unemployee Rl/o. Jaggaram Village, Ashwapuram Mandal, Khammam District.

...PETITIONER AND '1. The District Collector, Khammam District, Khammam.

2. The Sub Collector, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

3. The Heavy Water Plant (Manugur), Government of lndia, Pepartm^ent of AutomatiiEnergy, ManLigur, R-ep. by its Administrative Officer, P.O. Gautami Nagar, Aswapuram, Khammam District.

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 3rd respondent No.HWPM/R/LL-791071361 dated 11.04.2007 in rejecting the claim of the writ Petitioner for providing employment under Land Loser Policy as arbitrary, illegal and violatie of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and also contrary to the policy laid down by the Government in Memo No.813/lD/81-2, lndustries and commerce Department dated 07.07.1981 and consequentially direct the respondents to provide employment to the Petitioner as per the policy of the Government on par with other similarly situated persons viz.

Kandimalla Narsimha Rao, and Mutheboina Venkateswarlu l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008 WPMP.

case of the petitioner for providing employment as per the policy laid down by the Government in Memo No.8'13/lD/81-2, lndustries & Commerce Department dated 07.07.1981 on par with other two persons i.e., Kandimalla Narsimha Rao, and Mutheboina Venkateswarlu Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. V. RAMANA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR , (DEpUTy SOLtCtTOR GENERAL OF tNDtA) The Court made the following: ORDER

-+.r n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITIoN No.572O OF 2OO8 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order No.HWPM/(RllLL-791o7 1361, dated tl.o4.2OO7 of the third respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for providing employment under 'Land Loser Policy', as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the policy laid down by the Government in Memo No.813/ID/81-2, Industries and Commerce (ID) Department, dated 07.O7.1981 and consequently to direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent-Heavy Water Plan Manuguru and the learned counsel for t.

respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3.

The contentions on behalf of the petitioner are that the petitioner is the son-in-law of late Sri Madakam Yerraiah and Sri Madakam Yerraiah is the original owner of the land in Survey No.79 of Ammagaripalli Village to an

T extent of Ac. 1.23 guntas and the said land was given to the petitioner at the time of marriage. The same was acquired by the Authorities for the purpose of construction of Hear,y Water Plant at Maluguru. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for employment under ,Land Losers euota,. For this purpose, the learned counsel has relied on the Government Memo, dated 07.07. 1981. The relevant portion of the said Memo reads as under:

"for each family displaced by the acquisition of land, at least one member of the family shall be given employment in the proposed factory. The Drstrict Collector shall be final authority to decide as to who are the families displaced by the land acquisition. The Collector wili also specify which member of the family is to be given empioyment. In case of disputes, the decision of the Collector shall be hnal and binding on the Company."

I i i l, I i j I 4.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the Land Losers Certihcate, which is issued by the second respondent - Sub Collector, Kothagudem, there is an endorsement made by the Mandal Revenue Offrcer, Aswapuram, dated 26.01.19g7 that .,Shri K. Butchi Ramulu, s/o. Bakkaiah is the son_in_law of

Madakam Yerraiah, land loser. Hence attested". Based on which, the petitioner's counsel contended that petitioner be provided employment being a family member.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.24063 of 2OO7 dated 15.11.2OO7 and contends that the facts in the said writ petition are similar to the facts of the case on hand, and hence, the relief which has been granted in the said writ petition should be granted to the petitioner.

6. It is further contended that in the letter No.G/3863/2005, dated 08.03.2007 of the Collector & District Magistrate, Khammam addressed to the Chief General Manager, Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru), Aswapuram, it is mentioned that the petitioner is the owner of the Iand and the same has not been taken into consideration by the concerned authorities ald the case of the petitioner has been rejected, which is bad in law ald therefore, appropriate relief be granted.

'-/ 7 .

The learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent contends that the case of petitioner was examined in the year 1991 ald the safite was closed. The petitioner being the son-in-law is not eligible, as he is not a family member. It is contended that as per the Memo dated 07.07.1981, in Clause (a) extracted supra, it has been stated that one member of the family sha-ll be given employment in the proposed plant. It is contended that a letter dated 08.03.2007 was addressed by the Collector, Khammam to the Chief General Manager, Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru), Aswapuram, to examine the case of the petitioner and take necessary action. In response to the said letter, the Administrative Officer of the concerned Unit (i.e., Heavy Water Plalt at Manuguru) has addressed the letter dated II.O4.2OOT to the petitioner stating that he is not eligible for employment.

8.

Another ground which has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent is that there is delay in submitting the representation and if any person * seeks employment under the land loser scheme/quota, he/ she has to submit a representation within one year

from the date of issuance of Land Loser Certificate, time being the essence or at least within reasonable time. 9.

It is further contended that the facts in W.P.No.24063 of 2OO7 are different to the facts of the present case and therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the present case, and at this distant point of time, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered, as his age also has to be taken into consideration.

10. It is contended that in the certihcate dated 26.01.1947 issued by the concemed authorities, no family member was identified, as to which family member should be given employment in Healy Water Plant, Manuguru. It is also contended that on the basis of the representation, which has been made by the petitioner, his case was referred to the Interview Committee, which met on 13/14.05.1987 and the case of the petitioner was not approved as he was the son-in-Iaw of the land loser and Sri Madakam Yerraiah was considered for employment on 14.07.1991, who is the actual land owner ald the Committee has not recommended him, as he was overaged.

+\-.-r-

1 1 . Subsequentiy, arother Land Loser Certificate in RC No.C/2904/87, dated 20.11.1990 was issued by the revenue authorities for the land acquired to al extent of Ac.O.37 guntas in Survey No.9g/p of Madakam yerraiah. Madakam Yerraiah,s son M. Venkateswarlu was nominated for employment and he submitted an application dated 21.11.1991 and hence, the averment of the petitioner in the writ affidavit i.e., K. Butchi Ramulu, that Madakam Yerraiah was not having sons is not correct and the petitioner was misleading the Court.

12. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and considered the rival contentions.

13. If the land in Survey No.79 admeasuring Ac.l.23 guntas was given to the petitioner at the time of marriage and he is the owner, the petitioner should have produced documentar5r evidence to indicate that the petitioner had title to lald. No documentar5r material has been placed on record. It is trite to mention here that Memo dated 07 .OZ .lgal specifically states that the Collector shall be final authority to specify the families displaced arrd shall r...

specify which member of family is to be given employment. In the Land Loser Certificate issued by office of Sub-Collector, Kothagudem, dated 26.OI.1987 in RC No.Dl al7l186, the petitioner's name is not identified for employment. The petitioner IS presently aged about 53 years

14. A perusal of letter dated 08.03.2007 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Khammam, addressed to the Chief General Manager, Heary Water Plant, Manuguru shows that in the said letter, the Collector has requested to examine the case of the petitioner and take necessary action as per rules. On the basis of the said letter, a communication was made to the petitioner, vide letter No.HWPM/(RllLLR-79lOU 361, dated tl.o4.2oo7. In the said letter, it was informed to the petitioner that the case of the original land owner was examined in 199 1 and the same was closed. It was also stated that son-in-laws are not eligible under 'Land Loser Quota'. An endorsement t I I I that petitioner is the son-in-law as per the certificate will not entitle the petitioner for employment. Once the case of the petitioner has been considered and found not eligible

o f-\.

for employment, subsequentry the petitioner cannot further request at a distant point of time and seek employment as his case was already considered and held not eligible. A mere endorsement cannot be taken as basis for providing employment, without being identified by Distrrct co[ector for employment. The phrase .family, includes a person, his or her spouse, minor children, minor brothers and minor sisters dependent on him. The petitioner herein constitutes a separate family unit.

15. On a perusal of entire material papers ald having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

16. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT GIST //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

2. One CC to SRl. P. V. RAMANA, Advocate [OPUCI

3. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA IOPUC]

4. Two CD Copies BM

HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023

ORDER

WP.No.5720 of 2008 t{E STAf s I q o (.) 4'

t O€ 2zoL 1 2 ilAn 202[ * SPAIC DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u\