Eeranki Ranemma vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3268 Tel

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


                  WRIT APPEAL No.1009 of 2023

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



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


       Mr. Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel and

learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office

of learned Advocate General 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.127 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 to 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 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 the aforesaid demand notice, a sum of

Rs.16,46,500/- was demanded from the appellant.

Thereupon, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.127 of 2023

before the learned Single Judge assailing the aforesaid

demand notice. The learned Single 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.

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

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 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 pending, if any, shall

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ

______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J

17.10.2023 vs