Telangana High Court
Ramavath Muni Lal vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.30530 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of the respondents in dispossessing/evicting the petitioner from the residential quarter No.AE/105 without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said quarter and for other appropriate reliefs.
2. It is stated that the father of the petitioner and his forefathers are the native of Nandikonda Village, where the Nagarjuna Sagar Irrigation Project was constructed. It is further stated that at the time of construction of the said irrigation project, the government has constructed some government quarters to enable to reside the workers, who are involved in construction of the project and the petitioner has been residing in Quarter No.AE/105 of Hill Colony and he is paying monthly rents and electricity charges. It is further stated that the respondents have not initiated any steps for 2 CVBR, J Wp_30530_2024 eviction of the petitioner, therefore, he is residing in the quarter and he being the Scheduled Tribe and landless poor, is entitled to regularize the quarter in his favour and the Government is not having any power to evict the petitioner from the said quarter.
3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has placed on record the written instructions received through letter No.A3/EE/Irr.Divn.No.1/HC/Qr.AE/ 105/2024-25/269, dated 01.11.2024, wherein it is stated that the Quarter No.AE/105 at Hill Colony was collapsed long back, as such, the said quarter was not allotted to any person since 01.04.2004 as per occupation register maintained by the section Officer, Hill Colony and the petitioner has not approached the irrigation department for allotment of any type of quarter. The instructions also discloses that earlier the petitioner also filed W.P.No.34946 of 2022 claiming that he is living with his family in Quarter No.AE/114 at Hill Colony and in the said writ petition, it is the case of the respondents that the quarter 3 CVBR, J Wp_30530_2024 No.AE/114 was allotted to the Regional Director (AMD), Hyderabad camp at Hill Colony, Nagarjunasagar vide Office Order No.1778-M, dated 28.01.2000 as per occupation register. Further, the Government of Telangana, Irrigation and CAD Department accorded permission to the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation to handover the assets of Nagarjunasagar Dam to the District Collector, Nalgonda for onward transmission to the respective authorities vide Memo No.1326/LA/A1/2020, dated 09.09.2020, in which out of 1351 balance quarters with the irrigation department, 260 quarters are required for staff of irrigation department and offices of Nagarjuna Sagar Project kept under the control of irrigation department and the remaining 1091 quarters are placed for disposal of the District Collector so as to dispose them on auction or through tender process. Accordingly, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, submitted the list of government quarters of 1091 which are to be disposed to the District Collector vide letter, dated 12.08.2021 and the subject quarter is in the list of 1091 quarters, which were handed over to the District Collector, Nalgonda.
5. It is settled principles of law that the government quarters allotted to the employees or any persons are not entitled for 4 CVBR, J Wp_30530_2024 regularization. There are cases where the occupants are so affluent that they are willing to pay the penal/market rent and are seeking to regularize the quarters allotted and continue to occupy the Government Quarters. In the case of S.D.Bandi us. Divisional Traffic Officer, KSRTC and others 1 occupation of Government accommodation by the members of three branches of the State i.e., Legislature, executive and the judiciary beyond the period for which the same was allotted came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In Para 33, it was observed as follows:
"Suggestions
33. The following suggestions would precisely address the grievances of the Central and the State Governments in regard to the unauthorised occupants:
33.1. As a precautionary measure, a notice should be sent to the allottee/officer/employee concerned under Section 4 of the PP Act three months prior to the date of his/her retirement giving advance intimation to vacate the premises.
33.2. The Department concerned from where the government servant is going to retire must be made liable for fulfilling the abovementioned formalities as well as follow-up actions so that rest of the provisions of the Act can be effectively utilised.
33.3. The principles of natural justice have to be followed while serving the notice.
33.4. After following the procedure as mentioned in SR 317-B-11(2) and 317-B-22 provisos 1 and 2, within 7 working days, send a show-cause notice to the person concerned in view of the advance intimation sent three months before the retirement.1
AIR 2073 Supreme Court 2507 5 CVBR, J Wp_30530_2024 33.5. Date of appearance before the Estate Officer or for personal hearing as mentioned in the Act after show-cause notice should not be more than 7 working days.
33.6. Order of eviction should be passed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 15 days.
33.7. If, as per the Estate Officer, the occupant's case is genuine in terms of Section 5 of the Act then, in the first instance, an extension of not more than 30 days should be granted.
33.8. The responsibility for issuance of the genuineness certificate should be on the Department concerned from where the government servant has retired for the occupation of the premises for next 15 days and further. Giving additional responsibility to the Department concerned will help in speedy vacation of such premises. Baseless or frivolous applications for extensions have to be rejected within seven days.
33.9. If as per the Estate Officer the occupant's case is not genuine, not more than 15 days' time should be granted and thereafter, reasonable force as per Section 5(2) of the Act may be used. 33.10. There must be a time-frame within how much time the Estate Officer has to decide about the quantum of rent to be paid. 33.11. The same procedure must be followed for damages. 33.12. The arrears/damages should be collected as arrears of land revenue as mentioned in Section 14 of the Act. 33.13. There must be a provision for compound interest, instead of simple interest as per Section 7.
33.14. To make it more stringent, there must be some provision for stoppage or reduction in the monthly pension till the date of vacation of the premises.
33.15. Under Section 9(2), an appeal shall lie from an order of eviction and of rent/damages within 12 days from the day of publication or on which the order is communicated respectively. 33.16. Under Section 9(4), disposal of the appeals must be preferably within a period of 30 days in order to eliminate unnecessary delay in disposal of such cases.
33.17. The liberty of the appellate officer to condone the delay in filing the appeal under Section 9 of the Act should be exercised very reluctantly and it should be an exceptional practice and not a general rule.
33.18. Since allotment of the government accommodation is a privilege given to the Ministers and Members of Parliament, the matter of 6 CVBR, J Wp_30530_2024 unauthorised retention should be intimated to the Speaker/Chairman of the House and action should be initiated by the House Committee for the breach of the privileges which a Member/Minister enjoys and the appropriate Committee should recommend to the Speaker/Chairman for taking appropriate action/eviction within a time-bound period. 33.19. The Judges of any forum shall vacate the official residence within a period of one month from the date of superannuation/retirement. However, after recording sufficient reason(s), the time may be extended by another one month. 33.20. Henceforth, no memorials should be allowed in future in any government houses earmarked for residential accommodation.
6. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Onkar Nath Dhar 2 wherein it was observed as follows:
"Para 13: In view of the judgments referred above, the Government accommodation could not have been allotted to a person who had demitted office. No exception was carved out even in respect of the persons who held Constitutional posts at one point of time. It was held that the Government accommodation is only meant for in-service officers and not for the retirees or those who have demitted office. Therefore, the view of the learned Delhi High Court and that of the Punjab & Haryana High Court is erroneous on the basis of compassion showed to displaced persons on account of terrorist activities in the State. The compassion could be shown for accommodating the displaced persons for one or two months but to allow them to retain the Government accommodation already allotted or to allot an alternative accommodation that too with a nominal licence fee defeats the very purpose of the Government accommodation which is meant for serving officers. The compassion howsoever 2 MANU/SC/0524/2021 7 CVBR, J Wp_30530_2024 genuine does not give a right to a retired person from continuing to occupy a government accommodation."
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner has not made out any case warranting interference of this Court and this Writ Petition is dismissed, accordingly. No costs.
8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY 04.11.2024 gkv