The Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2439 AP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         &
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                           WRIT APPEAL No.420 of 2021
                            (Through Video-Conferencing)

The Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational
Institutions Society, represented by its Secretary,
R/o. Tadepalli, Guntur District                                        ... Appellant
                                      Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal
Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat Complex,
Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh, and others                             ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellant                 : Mr. G. Simhadri

Counsel for respondent No.1               : G.P. for Social Welfare
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5         : ---
Counsel for respondent No.6               : Mr. Keerthi Kiran Kota

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

                                  Dt:16.07.2021

(Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the appellant.

Also heard Mr. T.N.M. Ranga Rao, learned Government Pleader for Social

Welfare for respondent No.1 and Mr. Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned counsel for

respondent No.6.

This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the

learned single Judge in W.P.No.328 of 2021, allowing the writ petition and

directing appellant herein (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) to pay arrears

of rent payable to the writ petitioner (respondent No.6 herein) in accordance

with the original rent for both the original area as well as the additional built up

area given by the writ petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date

of receipt of the order.

Mr. G. Simhadri, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that a

wrong Report submitted by the Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Education 2 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.420 of 2021

and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation (APEWIDC), deliberately

showing the property of the writ petitioner to be situated in Ananathapuram

Municipal Corporation, while the said property was situated in Akuthotapalli

village, resulted in fixation of much higher rent than what the writ petitioner

would have been entitled to in terms of G.O.Ms.No.63 dated 18.04.2011, as the

aforesaid G.O. had fixed maximum amount of rent payable on the basis of,

amongst others, location of the building, specifying different rent per sq. ft. in

respect of municipal areas and rural areas.

The learned single Judge, on consideration of materials on record, held

that the writ petitioner would be entitled to the rent which was agreed upon

and that the writ petitioner is not bound by the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.63

dated 18.04.2011, which is said to be the basis on which the rent was

calculated by the appellant later on.

Mr. Keerthi Kiran Kota, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submits

that the allegation that the Executive Engineer deliberately had shown the

location of the premises of the writ petitioner to be in the Municipal area and

thereby suggesting a higher rent is absolutely unfounded and to buttress the

aforesaid contention, he has taken us through proceedings dated 13.06.2015

issued by the Joint Collector/Chairman, Ananthapuramu.

A perusal of the said proceedings goes to show that it is reflected therein

that the building of the writ petitioner is situated at Korrapadu of Akuthotapalli

village and that rent was fixed accordingly on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.63 dated

18.04.2011. Therefore, the submission of Mr. G. Simhadri, learned counsel for

the appellant, that location of building of the writ petitioner was not correctly

reflected, cannot be sustained. May be there was error of calculation in

applying the rate at Rs.5.50 per sq. ft. though the said building was in village

area. G.O.Ms.No.63, on which much reliance is placed by Mr. G. Simhadri, was

also reflected in the proceedings dated 13.06.2015. It was for the authorities 3 HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.420 of 2021

to have checked upon as to whether in terms of G.O.Ms.No.63, correct rate has

been applied while calculating the rent payable to the writ petitioner.

Apparently, the said exercise was not done by the authorities. The writ

petitioner was in no way associated with the fixation of the aforesaid rent and

the rent that was determined by the authorities was accepted by the writ

petitioner.

Not only in the aforesaid proceedings dated 13.06.2015, subsequently

also, in proceedings dated 07.07.2017, the authorities took note of the fact that

the building of the writ petitioner was situated at Akuthotapalli village while

sanctioning payment of arrears of Rs.9,90,140/-.

It is also admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the

appellant had vacated the building of the writ petitioner on 15.12.2019.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the view

taken by the learned single Judge cannot be faulted with and, accordingly,

finding no merit, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                                    NINALA JAYASURYA, J
MRR