Eeranki Venu Kumar Goud, vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3190 Tel

     THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR


                 WRIT APPEAL No.994 of 2023


JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


       Mr. L. Harish, learned counsel appears for the appellant.

       Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Special Government

Pleader appears for the respondents.


2.     This intra court appeal is filed against an order dated

12.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge by which Writ

Petition No.129 of 2023 preferred by the appellant in which

challenge was made to demand notice dated 05.12.2022 issued

by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, towards regularization

charges, has been dismissed.


3.     Facts

giving rise for filing of this appeal briefly stated

are that the appellant is an encroacher in respect of

Government's property measuring 245 sq.yards in Survey

No.141 of Mamidipally Village, Balapur Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District. The State Government has framed a policy for CJ & NVSK, J

regularization of unauthorized occupation vide G.O.Ms.No.59

dated 30.12.2014. Under the aforesaid policy, subject to

payment of the amount at the rate prescribed therein, the

possession of an encroacher in respect of Government land can

be regularized. The rates fixed for respective extents of

residential land are quoted below:

1. Possession up to 250 sq.yards, 50% of the basic value as on 02.06.2014.

2. Possession up to 500 sq.yards, 75% of the basic value as on 02.06.2014.

3. Possession above 500 sq.yards, basic value as on 02.06.2014.

4. Thereafter, G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 30.12.2014 was

amended by G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 01.03.2023 and instead of

the words 'as on 02.06.2014', the words 'as on the date of

application' were substituted.

5. By aforesaid demand notice, a sum of Rs.4,53,250/- was

demanded from the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant filed

Writ Petition No.129 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge

assailing the aforesaid demand notice. The learned Single CJ & NVSK, J

Judge however by an order dated 12.09.2023 has dismissed the

aforesaid writ petition inter alia on the ground that the scheme

of regularization is the policy decision of the State and the

State has absolute power to alter or amend the scheme. It was

further held that in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the Court would enforce fundamental or

legal rights of a person. The learned Single Judge upheld the

validity of the aforesaid demand notice. However, remaining

75% of the amount was directed to be deposited by the

appellant within a period of six (6) weeks. Accordingly, the

aforesaid writ petition was dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the

aforesaid demand notice is not in consonance with

G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 30.12.2014.

7. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader

has pointed out Clause 2(vi) of G.O.Ms.No.59 dated

30.12.2014 and has submitted that the demand notice has been

issued in accordance with the aforesaid policy decision.

CJ & NVSK, J

8. We have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

9. Admittedly, the appellant is an encroacher of the

Government land. The appellant neither has any fundamental

right nor any statutory right to continue on the land in

occupation. A right has been created in favour of the appellant

under the policy of regularization framed by the State

Government. Therefore, the appellant is bound by the policy

decision taken by the State Government. Clause 2(vi) of

G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 30.12.2014 provides for that possession

of Government land as extension or appurtenant to a dwelling

unit on land already owned or assigned may be considered for

regularization on payment of full basic value. The demand

notice issued is in consonance with Clause 2(vi) of

G.O.Ms.No.59 dated 30.12.2014.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any

ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single

Judge. In any case, extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of CJ & NVSK, J

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

cannot be exercised in favour of an encroacher.

11. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

Date: 16.10.2023.

ES