IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 2163fi OF 2009 Between: Indugula Eswaramma, W/o. Sri Tata Chnnagantyada Vilage, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Rao, aged 48 years, R/o. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Revenue Divisonal Officer, Gajuwaka Mandal District. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka District. rep by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ order praying that in may or direction one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the connected records, including the proceedings Rc.No.3487/1 999/El, dated 15-7:^009, issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, violation of the principles of natural - in W.P.No.291 of same and further direct the 1st justice and contrary to the directions of this Hon'ble Court i 2002, dated 6-11-2008 and quash the N respondent to permit the petitioner to raise the structures in 60 sq yards in Sy.No.129 of Vadlapudi Vilage, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 28108 OF 2009) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to raise the structures in 60 sq. yards in Sy.No.129 of Vadlapudi Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the writ petition I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016fWPMP. NO: 32128 OF 2016) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to fix an early date for hearing Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K RAMAMOHAN MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.2 and 3: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT (AP) The Court made the following: Order APHC010490052009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3506] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 21635/2009 Between: Indugula Eswaramma ...PETITIONER AND The State rep. by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam District & Ors. ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K RAMAMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR ASSIGNMENT(AP) 2.GPFOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in Rc.No.3487/1999/E1, dated 15.07.2009, issued by the respondent by which the patta granted in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled, as arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner claiming to be a landless poor applied for grant of house site patta and after enquiry, her case was considered positively and an extent of 60 sq. yards in Survey No. 129 of Vadlapudi Village, 2. 2 CGR, J. W.P. No.21635 of 2009 Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, came to be allotted on 01.02.1999. Later, on receiving complaint that the petitioner has made application for grant of patta suppressing that already her husband had house property in an extent of 96 sq. yards in Survey No.122 of Chinagantyada village, having conducted enquiry, the Joint Collector cancelled the same, vide proceedings dated 16.04.1999. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order before the Commissioner of Appeals, Hyderabad and the said appeal also came to be dismissed, by order dated 13.06.2001. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner further approached this Court by filing W.P. No.291 of 2002. By order, dated 06.11.2008, the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the 1®‘ respondent to consider the issue afresh with reference to the material submitted by the petitioner in support of her plea that the house standing in the name of her husband was already purchased by Kalupaka Veereswamma in discharge of the debts owed by them and that the petitioner and her family members staying there merely as tenants and on establishing such plea, she was directed to be granted patta by handing over possession. In pursuance to the said directions, the 1®* respondent had, after issuing notice and hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order, dated 15.07.2009, by holding that the A—' CGR, J. W.P. No.21635 of 2009 petitioner’s husband already owned house property even at the time of grant of house site patta in favour of the petitioner and that the aforesaid house property came to be disposed of in favour of Kalupaka Ramulu, husband of K.Veeresamma, on 30.11.1991 and two other portions of the building to Olipili Rajarao on 18.04.2001, to B.Saibaba in the year 2003 through unregistered sale deeds, therefore, the petitioner’s husband was very much owning house property, the same amounted to suppressing that the petitioner was a landless poor for claiming the grant of house site patta and thereby, the patta granted in favour of the petitioner in the year 1999 was rightly cancelled. Assailing the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents inter alia stating that the petitioner’s husband had purchased an extent of 96 sq. yards from Smt.Kuncha Appalanarasamma on 22.09.1986 and thereafter, constructed two portioned house and later part of it was sold to Kulapaka Ramulu, husband of K.Veeresamma 3. on 30.11.1991, part of it vide house bearing Door No.27-3-3/1 to Olipili Raja Rao on 18.04.2001 and the another portion to Saibaba in the The factum of the year 2003 through unregistered sale deeds, petitioner’s husband owning the above said property was not brought CGR, J. W.P. No.21635 of 2009 to the notice of the officers while application was made claiming grant of house site patta justifying claim, that the petitioner was houseless, hence, her case could not have been considered for grant of house site patta and rightly the same has been cancelled. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.136 Housing (U&IAY) Department, dated 08.05.2006, the revised policy of Government with respect to grant of house sites or houses in urban areas, the beneficiaries are entitled to be considered only under Indiramma Housing Programme and question of allotting individual plots does not arise. It is further stated that the petitioner later has been allotted house under Indiramma Housing Programme, Phase-lll under No.172 in Ward No.61 of G.V.M.C., on 04.09.2008, therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Smt.Y.Mahalakshmi, learned counsel, representing Sri K. Rama Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 5. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. 6. The petitioner was granted house site patta for an extent of 60 sq. yards in Survey No. 129 of Vadlapudi Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, on 01.02.1999. The record and enquiry 5 CGR, J. W.P. No.21635 of 2009 conducted by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer, to which even the petitioner was party, discloses that petitioner’s husband purchased an extent of 96 sq. yards in Survey No. 122 of Chinagantyada village, on 22.09.1986 from Kuncha Appalanarasamma and later constructed residential house. In order to discharge the debts to Smt.Kalupaka Veeresamma, petitioner’s husband sold a portion of the house to Kalupaka Ramulu, husband of K.Veereswamma, on 30.11.1991. Then petitioner’s family still was holding two portions of the constructed house. However, the petitioner applied for grant of house site patta and was granted the same in an extent of 60 sq. yards on 01.02.1999. Under the scheme and policy of granting house site pattas, it is pre-requisite that the person making such application should satisfy the condition that such beneficiary should not own any property to be a landless poor. However, though the petitioner’s family was owning the house property, patta was granted in her favour. Upon receiving complaint and after examining the contents thereof and conducting necessary inspection, the patta granted in favour of the petitioner came to be cancelled, by order, dated 16.04.1999. It is only, thereafter, that the petitioner’s husband has sold the remaining two portions one to Olipiri i 6 CGR, J. W.P. No.21635 of 2009 Rajarao on 18.04.2001 and another to Saibaba in the year 2003 through unregistered sale deeds. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as on the date 7. of cancellation of the house site patta, the petitioner’s husband had already sold a substantive part in the house property to discharge their debts and to meet the medical expenditure and they were residing in the same house only as tenants, therefore, this aspect of St the matter was not properly appreciated and considered by the 1 respondent while cancelling the house site patta. Even acceding to the said submission, only portion of the 8. house property was alienated to husband of K.Veeresamma for discharge of the debts, leaving the other portions of the house property, therefore, as on the date of grant of house site patta, the petitioner cannot be said to be landless poor entitled for house site patta. 9. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court while remanding the matter to the 1®* respondent has directed to consider the issue with reference to the material submitted by the petitioner in supportof her plea that house standing in the name of her husband was already purchased and taken over by K.Veeresamma and she was only living CGR, J. W.P No.21635 of 2009 as tenant in the said house and if the said issue is decided in her favour, she was directed to be put in possession of the house site. The petitioner on earlier occasion has only taken plea that the house owned by her husband was alienated to K.Veeresamma, but now, upon enquiry it is found that only portion of the house was alienated to K.Veeresamma, which was prior to grant of house site patta in favour of the petitioner and the other two portions of the house came to be alienated much later in the year 2001 and 2003. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the 1®* respondent. The respondents in the counter-affidavit have categorically stated that the petitioner has been allotted house under Indiramma Housing Programme, Phase-Ill under No.172 in Ward No.61 of G.V.M.C. on 04.09.2008, therefore, her interest has been well 10. protected. However, when this Court on earlier occasion enquired the respondents to place on record any material in support of such allotment, nothing has been produced, by inference it is clear that the respondents have made false statement and tried to mislead this Court. The order passed on 07.03.2017 reads as under: “In para 17 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3^*^ respondent it is asserted that the petitioner has been allotted a house under No.172 in Ward No.61 of G.V.M.C. under Indiramma Housing Programme on 04.09.2008. CGR, J. W.P. No.21635 of 2009 On 08.02.2017 this Court directed the Government Pleader for Revenue to produce the copy of the proceeding allotting the said house to the petitioner. Today, the learned Government Pleader states that the petitioner’s name was included in the list of beneficiaries for release of funds for construction of a house. But, since the husband of the petitioner has erected a buddi, which he did not remove in spite of being asked to do so, no funds were allotted to petitioner. The Government Pleader also did not produce any allotment letter allotting house in the name of the petitioner and states that the respondent has not instructed him on that issue. It is therefore inferred that there was no allotment to the petitioner as alleged by the 3'^'^ respondent in the counter affidavit and the said averment in the counter affidavit is prima facie a false statement. Therefore, registry shall issue show cause notice to 3^^ respondent to show cause why proceedings for Contempt of Court shall not be initiated against him for filing a false affidavit in this Court and trying to mislead the Court. Post after two (02) weeks.” Even the 1®* respondent in the impugned order, dated 15.07.2009, has stated that in view of the then applicable revised policy of the Government on allotment of house to the deserving people in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 136, dated 08.05.2006, granting individual house site pattas in urban areas was not permissible and only houses in group housing were to be allotted and as the petitioner’s claim falls within the G.V.M.C., in case she makes a representation afresh, the same shall be examined with reference to the above policy, for allotment of appropriate house on priority. This statement made in the impugned order, dated 15.07.2009, clearly falsifies the stand of the respondentsthat they have already granted 11. 9 CGR, J. W.P. No.21635 of 2009 house under the Indiramma Housing Programme on 04.09.2008. Though, the aforesaid statement made by the respondents in the counter-affidavit clearly amounts to contempt of Court, however, this Court considering that punishing the respondents would not meet the ends of justice and having regard to the fact that petitionerhas been lingering for house site patta since the year 1999, the respondents are directed to allot house under the group housing scheme in terms of the housing policy in vogue presently within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 12. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 9r SECTION OFFICER 1. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam ^ DiSricr^^^^ Divisonal Officer, Gajuwaka Mandal. Visakhapatnam ^ DiSricf^^^' Revenue Officer, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam 4. One CC to SRI K RAMAMOHAN Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 6. Two CCs to GP FOR ASSIGNMENT Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies To, [OUT] (AP), High Court of Andhra gsg « HIGH COURT DATED: 12/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.21635 of 2009 O i* 2 1 FEB 2025 Current Section . ^ ^Sk£1spatch^i«5^ DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS