1 APHC010058772013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 13992 OF 2013 Between: 1. LOCHERLA BANGARAMM,, W/O.MUTYALU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE,H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE 86 MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. KANCHERLAPATI.APPALANARASAMMA (DIED),, W/ O. SIVANNARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, REP BY HER DAUGHTER DHANDU SUBADRA 3. PALLI LAKSHMI,, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 4. BODROTHU VARALAXMI,, W/O. NEELAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE,H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. BODROTHU GOWRAMMA,, W/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. S.SARASWATHI, W/O. SATYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 2 OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 7. RELLI APPALAMMA,, W/O. RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, 8. POTNURU CHINNAMMALU,, W/O. RAMU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 9. POTNURU APPALANARASAMMA,, W/O. LAXMU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 10.KOTA SALALAMMA,, W/O. SOMULU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL,VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 11.GANTYADA GOWRAMMA,, W/O. VENKANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 12.GANTYADA ELHAVANI,, W/O. APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE LABOUR, R/O M.PALEM VILLAGE, H/O MERAKAMUDIDAM VILLAGE & MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, URDU GALLI, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, AT VIZIANAGARAM. 3 3.THE A P STATE HOUSI CORPORATION LTD REP BY ITS DEPUTY, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4.THE SPECIAL OFFICER A P HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5.THE TAHSILDAR, MERAKAMUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6.THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HOUSING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R 2.SUDHAKAR REDDY T (SC FOR APSHC) 3.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri C. Soma Raju, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for Housing Department and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, Ld. Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Proceedings of the Tahsildar, Merakamudidam Mandal dated 09.01.2012 (Ex.P.1). The Writ Petitioners have received the ‘Recovery Notices’ on 09.01.2012 for recovery of an amount of rupees from Rs.15,000/- up to Rs.25,000/- from each of the Writ Petitioner. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that based on enquiry made by the Lokayuktha, the Official Respondents herein have conducted an Enquiry behind back of the Writ Petitioners and have determined that with regard to the amount that is distributed for 4 construction of houses under Indiramma Housing Scheme, various Officials have done fraud and had submitted a Report to this effect. The said Report has recommended for recovery of the said amount from the beneficiaries. 3. In compliance with the Order of this Court dated 09.07.2025, the Official Respondents have placed on record the Report submitted by the Executive Engineer, dated 26.09.2011. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that this Report has been prepared seeking recovery from the beneficiaries, behind their back. 4. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court which is passed in an identical case i.e., in Reddy Yellamma Vs. The Andhra Pradesh Housing Corporation Limited; (in W.P.no.5497 of 2013) dated 08.12.2016. The relevant portion of the Order is usefully extracted hereunder: “Mr.Ravindranath Reddy appearing for the 1st respondent submits that if the grievance of petitioners is that they were not heard by respondents before determining the liability, the proceeding impugned in the writ petition can be set aside, matter remitted back to respondents for adjudication afresh. The statement is placed on record and Distraint Order dated 11.02.2013 issued in Form-I is set aside. The alleged recovery from petitioners is remitted back to 1st respondent for adjudication in accordance with law. The 1st respondent is directed to issue notice to all the petitioners and the petitioners are given liberty to raise objections available in law and fact on the notice issued by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is directed to pass orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. Having considered the above extract, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is squarely covered by the Order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in the above mentioned Writ Petition. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The Impugned Order passed by the Official Respondents dated 09.01.2012 (Ex.P.1) is set aside. The 5 Official Respondents are directed to issue fresh Notice to all the Writ Petitioners and pass Speaking Orders in accordance with law after giving liberty to the Writ Petitioners to raise objections. 7. In view of the fact that this Writ Petition is of the year 2013, there shall be a direction to all the Official Respondents to issue fresh Notices in accordance with law within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from today. It is also clarified that in view of the long pendency of the litigation, if the Official Respondents have not chosen to issue Notice to all the Writ Petitioners within the time specified, the right of recovery on the part of the Official Respondents shall stand automatically forfeited. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 29.07.2025 MNR 6 187 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 13992 OF 2013 Dt: 29.07.2025 MNR