Ramavath Muni Lal vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 4278 Tel

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

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

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

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.

AIR 2073 Supreme Court 2507

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

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

MANU/SC/0524/2021

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