Journalists are fighting for a peice of land.Right now there are 6 housing societies.Recently Amar and Srinivas Reddy mobilised 5 societies and started attacking the oldest society.Looking at this the genuine society surrendered to our longterm leaders.Looking at this infighting the Chief Minister is adopting delaying tactics.
32 comments:
Anonymous said...
Hi,
Is Surya news paper has online edition?
November 29, 2007 12:07 PM
Anonymous said...
jounalistulaku kaneesa parighyanam koravadindanadaaniki prathyakhsa taarkaanamidi. oka societyki/ sanghaaniki gurtimpu raavaalante konta samayam padutundi. prati okkaduu eppudu moodu vaste appude samgham petteste ventane gurtimpu vaccheeyadu. pani paata chese vedavala maatalu nammavaddu.
prastutam unna housing society membersku sites vachchina taruvaate kotta memeberski allot cheyadam jarugutundi.
rammoham,
November 29, 2007 12:22 PM
Anonymous said...
Flash news:
Tv5 is sold. Owner BR.Naidu sold it to Asianet for 18 crores.
November 29, 2007 1:18 PM
Anonymous said...
Dear ordinar journalist brothers & sisters...... We are at crossroads now . let us handle this situation with utmost care and caution. our gopanpally allotee fraternity have already became carodpathis due to a mere 270 yards of land alloted to them. All of us are not that lucky.
If Zee sailesh reddy , Hindu ravikanth reddy, SAKSHI 'S dodda srinivas reddy & narender reddy who are among office bearers tie up as a strong force in the present oldest housing society and take support of Diwakar none can overpower them in taking right decisions. This section should take control of situation and convince CM. All non allotee members & non-members who are expecting a plot/flat should rally their strength with a pragmatic approach behind this force. If this scenario emerges despite the disastrous petty politics played by our socalled journalist broker union leaders we can hope about succeedng in getting a piece of land to all genuine journalists. Otherwise.... you know what will happen.... which will be devastating end for hundreds of ordinary scribes. Let sanity & probity prevail.
See the following Judgement in the context of Writ Petition No.13730 of 2006 in Andhra pradesh high court which is very ambigious and leaves much scope for wider interpretation and further litigation if not handled carefully.Let us not miss this once in lifetime opportunity to become crorepathy just because of petty politics of our chillar leaders.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.13730 of 2006
Between:
V.S. Bose and others
… Petitioners
And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by Special Chief Secretary
to Government, Revenue Department, Hyderabad
And others
… Respondents
:: ORDER::
Counsel for the Petitioners: Shri G. Mohan Rao
Counsel for Respondents Nos.1 & 2: Shri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Advocate General and
Shri A. Satya Prasad,
Special Government Pleader.
Counsel for Respondent No.3: Shri T. Niranjan Reddy
Counsel for Respondent No.4: None.
October 08, 2007
Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ
Whether the policy of the government to provide shelter to the needy people can be stretched for allotting land to the haves of the society in their individual capacity in relaxation of the policy guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 28.2.2005 is the question, which arises for determination in this petition filed by Shri V.S. Bose and two others as a piece of public interest litigation for striking down G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (ASN.V) Department, dated 04.5.2006. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners have amended the prayer clause and have also prayed for quashing G.O.Ms.No.1424, Revenue (ASN.V) Department, dated 28.9.2006 vide which the earlier G.O. was amended in some aspects.
Petitioner No.1 is a retired employee of Electronic Corporation of India Limited (ECIL), Hyderabad. In the course of employment, he espoused the cause of workers for 30 years, remained office bearer of ECIL Workers Trade Union, HPCL Cherlapally Workers Union, HCL Cherlapally Workers Union and is presently President of Kapra Municipality Contract Workers Union and Alwaal Municipal Contingent Workers Union. Petitioner No.2 is a senior citizen and has been involved in various social activities enumerated in the bio-data filed as Ex.P.7. He has worked in different capacities in various NGOs, the details of which are as under:
1) President, Federation of A.P. Senior Citizens’ Organisations, Hyderabad.
2) Managing Trustee and President, International Foundation for Human Development, Hyderabad, India
3) President for the past 9 years, Association Internationale pour le Partenatiat Enterprises-ONG (AIPEO) (International Association for NGOs and Business Firms Partnership), Paris, France
4) Hon. President, International Association for Human Development, Paris, France.
5) President, Coordinating Committee for International Voluntary Service (CCIVS), Paris, affiliated to UNESCO, 1977-1993
6) Reppoteur and Vice-President, successively of the Standing Committee of NGOs affiliated to UNESCO, Paris, 1986-1992
7) President, Standing Committee of NGOs affiliated to UNESCO, Paris, 1992-1997
8) Convenor, International Coordinating Committee on Education for All Network Sponsored by UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP, The World Bank and a number of NGOs, 1994-1997, New York, USA.
9) Visiting Professor, Universidade Moderna, Lisbon, Portugal.
Petitioner No.2 has also published a dozen of books and articles and is a recipient of the following awards:
1) The UNESCO Mahatma Gandhi Silver Medal from Mr.Federico Mayor, Director General of UNESCO, Paris, in 1996.
2) Ugadi Puraskar, 1998 Award of Delhi Telugu Academy, received from the Vice-President of India.
3) Award of appreciation from European Telugu Association, Manchestor Convention, June 1997
4) Citizen Award and Key of the City conferred by the Mayor of Caserta, Italy in 1990
5) President Bourguiba Medal for the work in the field of Youth, from the Prime Minister of Tunisia in 1984
6) NCVB Medal for the Promotion of Voluntarism, Bulgaria, 1981
7) National Honour for the Services render to the Pan – African Youth by Captain Jerry Rowlings, President of Ghana in 1979.
Petitioner No.3, who retired from the service of VST Industries Limited as Projects and Engineering Services Manager, is presently a member of Forum for Better Hyderabad. He is also the Director of Center for Plant Engineering Services and Executive Member of Indian Institute of Plant Engineering.
In the affidavit filed by him, petitioner No.3 - Shri O.M. Debara has made a reference to the policy contained in G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, dated 28.2.2005 for allotment of land and averred that by virtue of the G.O. impugned in the writ petition, majority of the salient conditions of the earlier policy have been relaxed to facilitate allotment of land to the Judges of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Members of Parliament, sitting/ex-MLAs, members of All India Services, persons of eminence and working Journalists. He has further averred that the State Government has acquired land from poor agriculturists of various villages of Ranga Reddy District and allotted the same for I.T. projects, Bio-tech Park, Apparel Park, Discovery City and Hardware Park etc. and now Ac.245-00 of land has been earmarked for allotment to the identified categories of persons irrespective of their private possessions and the fact that they might be already having land and houses in the State.
The petitioners have questioned the impugned G.O. by contending that land worth Rs.700 crores is sought to be allotted to the Members of Parliament, Members of Legislative Assembly and others at a throw away price in complete disregard of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and this has been done without any rhyme or reason. According to the petitioners, the government is a trustee of the public land, which cannot be disposed of except by adopting a policy or mechanism consistent with the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 read with Articles 38 and 39(d) of the Constitution.
In the counter-affidavit filed by Dr.V.P. Jauhari, Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, reference has been made to G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244 dated 28.2.2005 and it has been averred that providing shelter to the needy is one of the priorities of the government and schemes like Indiramma, Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Wambey Housing Schemes etc. have been framed for weaker sections of the society and people below poverty line. According to Dr. Jauhari, till the issuance of three G.Os. on 28.2.2005, the government did not have any fixed policy or mechanism for allotment of land to the deserving sections of the society and keeping in view the steep escalation of land prices and scarcity of land, policy decision was taken to allot land to groups and societies with a minimum of 12 eligible members. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, Dr. Jauhari has given the details of the allotments made to various housing societies and associations, who satisfied the criteria of eligibility enumerated in G.O.Ms.Nos.243 and 244, dated 28.2.2005. According to him, the decision to allot Ac.245-00 of land in different villages of Ranga Reddy District has been taken on the representations made by various individuals/groups of individuals from different fields i.e. Judges Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society of the High Court of A.P., M.Ps./MLAs/AIS officers, people of eminence and journalists for allotment of government land for housing purpose on payment of basic value. Dr. Jauhari has then averred that under G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 4.5.2006, a very limited extent of land is sought to be allotted on payment of basic value to the specified categories, whereas land is given free of cost apart from subsidising the construction of home to the weaker sections. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit, Dr. V.P. Jauhari has set out the background in which G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, dated 28.2.2005 were issued. In paragraph 12, he has averred that the allegations made by the petitioners about construction of palatial houses by some All India Services officers and leasing out the same on rent for residential or commercial purposes cannot be answered because they have not given specific instances. In paragraph 13, Dr. Jauhari has averred that the allotment of land to IT sector has benefited the State inasmuch as the IT industries have generated employment opportunities for young people of the State and the State’s G.D.P. has grown by 7.55. He has then averred that allotment of land to IT sector has nothing to do with G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 4.5.2006. In paragraph 14, the deponent has refuted the petitioners’ assertion that the allotment of land to the Judges will undermine the independence of judiciary. For the sake of reference, paragraphs 4, 7, 10, 14 and 15 of the affidavit of Dr. V.P. Jauhari are reproduced below:
“4. It is submitted that the State Government having identified the urgent need for prudent management of the urban and semi-urban land resources and taking into consideration the demand of land for housing purposes and also keeping in view the tactics employed by private persons to create artificial escalation of prices of the land increasingly making it difficult for the employees, middle class citizens etc. to own a plot of land for housing purposes decided to have a comprehensive policy to meet the housing requirements of targeted sections of the society by creating a land bank and implemented the said policy through G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, Revenue (Assn.I) Department, dated 28.2.2005. Copies of the said G.Os. are filed as Annexures to this counter affidavit and the same may be read as part of the same. Providing shelter to the needy is one of the top priorities of the State Government. In case of people below the poverty line, the Government have from time to time formulated schemes like Indiramma, Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Wambay Housing Schemes etc. to benefit such sections. The Government of Andhra Pradesh did not have any fixed policy or mechanism till the issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, to meet the requirements of other deserving sections of the society for alienation of land to such sections. Thus, Government have taken utmost care to meet the needs of such sections of the society. As could be seen from the policy enumerated in the said G.Os. the Government have decided to pool up all land resources for allotting to various housing societies and other targeted groups. All the District Collectors have been instructed to identify the details of large chunks of land available in and around the municipalities/Municipal Corporation and other semi-urban areas for effective management of such lands by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. The methodology adopted by the State Government in the said G.Os is that land shall not be allotted in favour of any individual beneficiary. However, persons seeking such allotment of land shall form into Groups/Cooperative Societies with a minimum of 12 eligible members. The eligible sections of the society have also been identified as follows:
(i) Judges of Supreme Court and High Court, M.Ps, MLAs, All India Service Officers.
(ii) Accredited Journalists from recognized and registered newspapers.
(iii) State Government Employees and Panchayat Raj Teachers working in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
(iv) Recognized National and International Sports persons and eminent persons in the field of Culture and Arts.
(v) Defence Employees, Central Government employees and employees of Public Sector Undertakings.
(vi) Widows of Kargil and other war heroes and extremist violence who are hailing from Andhra Pradesh.
(vii) Weaker Sections.
(viii) Institutions – Educational/Charitable/Religious etc.
The land shall be allotted to the categories mentioned above from Sl. No. (i) to (iv) at the basic value of the land, for category (v) and (viii) at the prevailing market value, for category (vi) free of cost, for category (vii) as per the policy of the Government in vogue. The acquire land will be alienated on cost basis which means the actual cost paid to the land owners.
The following groups/societies have been allotted land pursuant to the policy enumerated in the G.Os mentioned supra.
Sl. No. District Category Extent Ref. GO Ms. 01 Srikakulam
Dist. Drivers Society 4.40 No. 360, dt. 22.03.05 02 mahaboobnagar T.N.G.Os Union
15.00 No. 1109, dt. 7.11.03 03.Nellore Dist. Rev. & Statistical Employees
84.39 No. 1319 dt. 7.7.05 04. AP NGOs, Gudur 10.00 No. 1036, dt. 15.12.04
05. Nizamabad Drivers Assn 2.30 No. 1147, dt. 15.06.05 06.Medak Class IV
employees 5.20 No. 1487, dt. 30.07.05 07. Kadapa Armed Reserve Policw
13.68 No. 1595, dt. 27.08.05 08.Dist. Forest Uniformed Officers 11.32
No. 1840, dt. 22.10.05 09. Police Employees 34.00 No. 478, dt. 24.04.05
10. ChittoorNGOs 7.08 No. 1839, dt. 22.10.05 09.Ranga ReddyA.P. Secretariat
Employees 59.14 No. 803, dt. 26.10.02 12.
-. I submit that the averments made in para 3 of the affidavit under reply are not true and correct. The contention that the 1st respondent is disposing of the property in favour of well placed persons without any public interest and contrary to the obligation of the State to provide land, shelter and employment to the persons belonging to weaker section of the society and below poverty line is incorrect and untenable. The 1st respondent is bound by the policy of providing land to weaker sections to eke out their livelihood and also providing house-sites to them to enable them to construct houses. A massive land distribution programme is undertaken by the 1st respondent during the last two years, which is unprecedented in the history of the State. An extent of approximately 1,55,217 acres of land covering 1,13,189 people in Phase.I (S.Cs – 36,182, S.Ts – 26,360, B.Cs – 36,068, Minorities – 1565 and others 13,014) and an extent of Ac. 1,70,423.04 of land covering 1,28,943 in Phase. II (S.Cs – 39,100, S.Ts – 20,572, B.Cs – 46,851, Minorities – 2,097 and others – 10,323) was distributed to weaker sections of the society. An extent of 50 lakh acres of land has been given to poor and landless poor in the State of Andhra Pradesh till now from the inception of the policy of distribution of land. Over 60 lakh houses have been constructed since 1983 for weaker sections and 18,77,876 houses estimated to cost Rs. 5029 crores is the target for 2006-07. The above details belies the statement of the petitioners that the 1st respondent is not taking care of the weaker sections of the society. On the other hand, the details would establish and speak about the commitment of the 1st respondent towards weaker sections in providing housing and land for eking out their livelihood. G.O.Ms.No. 243, which enumerates eligible categories, also cover weaker sections among others. Out of the annual budget of Rs. 63,527.00 crores, a sum of Rs. 39,994.00 crores is spent for the development of the State including welfare programmes for weaker sections. Balance amount goes for law and order, regulatory activities and staff salaries. There are about 12.28 lakh of employees in the Government sector and as an employer, it is the obligation of the State to provide and look after the welfare of the employees. Providing house-sites as well as loans for construction of houses is part of the welfare policy of the State and has been so since long time. The allotment of house sites to the employees of the State or their Associations/Societies has been in existence since decades and is presently being followed. Most of the State Governments in this country have such policies.
10. In reply to paras 9 to 12 of the affidavit, it is submitted that it is true that the State Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.243, Revenue (Assign.I) Department, dated 28.2.2005 laying down policy guidelines for allotment of land for housing to various categories of persons. The categories mentioned are Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, M.L.As., M.P.s, All India Service Officers, State Government employees, Journalists, Defence Personnel, weaker sections of the society etc. It is submitted that Government issued G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 28.2.2005 wherein the State Government evolved a policy with an intention to have effective management of land resources and creates a land bank. It is submitted that the State Government is of the view that with growing urbanization, the demand for land to meet the housing needs has become accentuated and many private persons are engaged in the land development and they resorted to artificial escalation of the prices of the land thereby owning plot has become increasingly difficult for the employees, middle class citizens and poor. It is also found that some unscrupulous elements have grabbed the government land or selling the government lands with false documents and affecting the interests of the public in general. Therefore, the State Government have decided comprehensive policy of meeting housing requirements by creating land bank and accordingly the said G.O. is issued. It is submitted that the said G.O. lays down guidelines to deal with the land and allot the same. It is further submitted that the Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 providing approach, methodology and categorizing various eligible persons for the purpose of allotment of land. The said G.O. also deals with size of the plot to be allotted in respect of various categories of persons and fixation of value of the land depending upon the land category. It is submitted that Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.244, dated 28.2.2005 laying down policy guidelines for the purpose of allotment of land for housing to Government employees. Thus, G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 deals with particular identification of categories of individuals, which includes Hon’ble Judges of Supreme Court and High Court, M.L.As., M.Ps., M.L.Cs., All India Service Employees, Government Servants and Journalists whereas G.O.Ms.No.244, dated 28.2.2005 also identifies various categories of employees working in the State for the purpose of allotment of land in their favour. Therefore, the State Government have taken a policy decision through the above said G.Os. to make available the land to the persons belonging to the above categories, keeping in view the fact that it is very difficult to secure a plot in and around Hyderabad, in view of escalation of prices. Such a policy is designed to help the needy individuals mentioned in the G.Os. including the Hon’ble Judges and no mala fides can be attributed to the Government in this behalf, as Judges are one of the categories mentioned in the said G.O. along with several other categories and no specific treatment was given in favour of any particular categories identified in the said G.O. Even the said allotment is depending upon the eligibility criteria enunciated in the said G.Os. Hence, it is submitted that the writ petitioners approached this Hon’ble Court without verifying the policy in true perspective and tried to convert the present writ petition as publicity interest litigation rather than public interest litigation.
14. In response to the contentions raised in para 17, it is submitted that the State Government have taken a conscious policy decision for allotting house-sites to various segments of the society, incidentally including to the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court of A.P. The contention of the petitioner that Hon’ble Judges of High Court of A.P. did not apply for allotment of house-sites and the Government made allotments on its own is incorrect. In fact, the Secretary, A.P. High Court Judges Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society in his representation dated 15.3.2004 requested the government for allotment of house-sites. The government have no motive in allotting the land to various categories. The allegations in that regard are only a figment of imagination of the petitioners. The allotments are made pursuant to a well dealienated policy of the State. It is totally objectionable that the writ petitioners seek to cast aspirations on the independence of judiciary and it is specifically submitted that such contentions are liable to be rejected as baseless and motivated. It is submitted that all the beneficiaries are liable to be rejected as baseless and motivated. It is submitted that all the beneficiaries have been treated on par, on eligibility criteria, to be scrutinized by the Committees constituted for the said purpose.
15. In reply to para 18 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the State Government while enunciating its policies always adhere to the principles enunciated in the preamble of the Constitution of India and also directive principles of the State policy. In fact policies are framed by the State to achieve the Constitutional goals. The petitioners are taking a blinkered view of the entire issue, motivated by narrow considerations of maligning the State. The same is clear from the various statements in the affidavit under reply. The State Government as a matter of fact issued the various G.Os as a welfare measure in favour of different sections of the society and the impugned G.O. is one such welfare measure issued with an intention to make available the land at fair price to the beneficiaries. As a matter of fact, the State Government have assigned 32,86,327 house sites to weaker sections covering an area of 1,28,557 acres. In addition to that the Government have acquired Ac. 2,13,135 and provided house sites to 41,08,633 beneficiaries, out of which in Ranga Reddy district alone, an extent of Ac. 3,894 covering 1,36,293 beneficiaries and in Hyderabad an extent of Ac. 134 covering 27,278 beneficiaries. Therefore the impugned action is not a new phenomenon and it is in consonance with the policies enunciated by the State Government from time to time.”
In paragraph 17, Dr.V.P. Jauhari has questioned the
bona fides of the petitioners by stating that they have not challenged the allotments made by the successive governments to MPs/MLAs/ Journalists/Government employees and eminent persons during the last 30 years.
In the rejoinder filed by him, petitioner No.3 reiterated that there is no justification for acquiring land belonging to agriculturists for allotment to the persons holding constitutional and other positions. In paragraph 7 of his rejoinder affidavit,
the deponent has made the following assertions:
“7. In reply to para 8, it is submitted that as per the policy of the State Government, the allotment of house-sites is to be considered to the persons who are in need of the same and that to be in the prime locations and near highways. The allotment is to be considered in the satellite townships to be developed by the third respondent. However, contrary to the said policy the impugned GO is issued by allotting land to the individuals in the prime location without adhering to the principle of need and the same is allotted in the prime locations surrounded by IT industries and Financial District. The area in which the land is allotted in favour of the individuals, in the same area large extents of land belonging to agriculturists was acquired for allotting to I.T. Industries, Institutions and Golf Course. There is no justification in acquiring land belonging to agriculturists for allotting to private institutions, while at the same time disposing the government property in favour of the private individual at a fraction of the market value. The impugned GO is not in the public interest and not in public welfare. The value of the land allotted under the impugned GO is more than a thousand crores as per the present market value and whereas as per the counter 5,029 crores is sought to be spent for constructions of 18,77,876 houses. Whereas the land worth Rs.1,000 crores is allotted in favour of 1600 individuals. This amount could have been spent for construction of nearly 4,00,000 houses for the poor and needy people. The welfare of 4,00,000 people is sought to be sacrificed for the benefit of 1600 people. The figures will speak that the interest of the haves is at the heart of the government than the interest of have-nots. What is the rational basis for allotment of land to individuals contrary to the policy of the State Government for allotting housing societies is not disclosed. Further, on what basis the categories of individuals in whose favour the GO is issued is selected/chosen is not disclosed. Further, what is the object sought to be achieved in allotting house-sites in favour of the individuals irrespective of their private possessions is not indicated. The persons in whose benefit the impugned GO is issued are the persons who are well placed in society and enjoying the government benefits and perquisites. The majority of the beneficiaries are residing in the government accommodation. The impugned GO has been issued without taking into account the need principle and the same is directly in violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and the State duty to utilize the public property for the common benefit of one and all. No reasons whatsoever are indicated/given as to the rational of allotting house sites to the individuals irrespective of their private possessions. The allotment of house sites to the individuals is not justified either on the principle of cost of the land or need to provide house sites irrespective of the need of the persons. The petitioners are entitled to question the same in the larger public interest and also of the fact that the public property belonging to the people of the State is sought to be disposed off without any public interest for the benefit of few at the cost of public at large. The respondents are responsible for abnormal escalation of land prices in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts. The sale of lands by the respondents by way of public auction is setting the benchmark for the land prices and the same is sole reason for abnormal and artificial rise in the land prices in and around Hyderabad. The respondents are acting like real estate developers engaged in the business of real estate rather than with the serious issues of governance and welfare of the people. Recently, the third respondent auctioned plots in Kokapet village of Ranga Reddy District, which is few kilometers away from Nanakramguda and Puppalguda. The highest price at which the one acre of land is sold is around 14 crores and the average price realized is nearly 8 crores per acre. About Acres 65.00 guntas was disposed off for a total of Rs.703 cerores. The land situated in Nanakramguda Village, Poppalguda and Vattinagulapally is having more potential than the land at Kokapet as the same is already developed. Further, the land at Kokapet has been auctioned by stating it is near to Nanakramguda where Financial District and IT Hub is located. The information provided by District Collector, Ranga Reddy and APIIC Ltd. relating to land sold in public auction and land allotted to various private institutions in Nanakramguda, Vattinagulapalli and the price at which they were allotted is filed along with reply. The certificate issued by the registration authorities for the land in Nanakramguda and Vattinagulapalli are filed along with the reply. The information relating to lands sold in auction and the land allotted to institutions is obtained subsequent to the filing of the writ petition.”
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, Shri P. Venkat Rama Reddy, Secretary, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, has averred that after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 4.5.2006, the revenue authorities handed over land situated at Poppalguda, Nanakramguda, Vottinagulapalli, Nizampet and Petbasheerbagh villages in Ranga Reddy District to HUDA for development of layout for the purpose to the identified categories of persons, but no development has so far been done. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit, Shri P. Venkat Rama Reddy has averred that the Government of Andhra Pradesh allotted lands situated at Kokapet for development and disposal through public auction and after conducting auction on 20.7.2006, the land was handed over to the highest bidders.
In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4, Dr.Justice G. Yethirajulu, Secretary, A.P. High Court Judges’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Limited, has set out the object of the society, which reads as under:
“Many of the High Court Judges, past and present, are living either in rented houses or in flats inadequate to their requirements. During their tenure of office, they are acclimatized to a life of restricted social activity. They have to share similar intellectual and social values and live in one locality. The Society is intended to bring all the Judges, past and present, who are willing to be the Members of the Society, to one place and allot plots in a locality easily accessible for market, medical and education facilities to them and their dependents. The Society, therefore, proposes to secure land and to build houses for the benefit of its members.”
Dr.Justice G. Yethirajulu has also made a reference to letter dated 13.8.2003 addressed by the society to the government for allotment of house-sites to the past and present Judges, who are living either in rented houses or in flats/ houses inadequate to their requirements and not commensurate with the constitutional positions held by them. According to him, the society has been formed with a view to secure land at one place to enable the members to construct houses with recreational and academic facilities either with their personal funds or through loans and averred that this will enable them to have frequent inter-action with each other and to get help from each other in case of emergency or medical need etc. In para 8 of his affidavit, Justice Dr. G. Yethirajulu has categorically averred that respondent No.4 is not intending to make any profit out of the allotted land.
Shri G. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975 (for short, ‘the Rules’), referred to the policy contained in G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244, dated 28.2.2005, as also the G.O. impugned in the writ petition, and argued that the government’s decision to relax the extant guidelines for facilitating allotment of premier land to individuals belonging to the identified categories is not only ultra vires the provisions of the Rules, but is also totally arbitrary and capricious and is intended to favour few individuals at the cost of the public revenue. He submitted that the land prices have substantially escalated in the last five years and, therefore, allotment of land to the individuals on payment of basic value without putting the same to auction will be detrimental to public interest. Learned counsel emphasized that while the policy enclosed in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 contained a complete prohibition against the allotment of land to the individuals and even those members of the societies and groups, who had already received the benefit of concessional allotment from the government or as members of any society or group to which concessional allotment was made, the impugned policy has given a go-bye to those norms and provision has been made for allotment of land even to those who own or possess land or houses in their own name or the names of their spouse or children or who may have availed the benefit of concessional allotment directly or indirectly. Shri Mohan Rao then argued that if the impugned policy is implemented, it will encourage profiteering because those who already have land or houses will acquire additional land at a throw away price and dispose of the same at the market rate which has skyrocketed in last few years. Learned counsel then argued that the State Government does not enjoy absolute freedom in the matter of allotment of public property and the distribution of the State’s largesse to the chosen individuals. In support of his arguments, Shri G. Mohan Rao relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in New India Public School v. HUDA[1], Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India[2], V. Purushotham Rao v. Union of India[3]. Learned counsel also questioned the amendment made vide G.O.Ms.No.1424, dated 28.9.2006 and submitted that the allotment of land to respondent No.4 without incorporating the restrictions enshrined in the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 offends the doctrine of equality.
Shri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Advocate General defended the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 4.5.2006 by arguing that the decision to relax the earlier policy was taken keeping in view the representations received from various individuals and group of individuals, who could not get land in terms of the earlier policy. He argued that the impugned G.O. is in consonance with the policy of the government to provide shelter to the needy sections of the society and submitted that the restrictions contained in the policies circulated vide G.O.Ms.Nos.243 and 244, dated 28.2.2005 were removed with a view to obviate the possibility of any discrimination among the individuals belonging to the identified categories. Learned Advocate General highlighted the fact that the government is pursuing pro-poor policy by pointing out that thousands of acres of land has been earmarked and used for construction of houses under Indiramma, Rajeev Gruhakalpa and other schemes meant for poorer sections of the society and argued that the complaint made against the proposed allotment of land to the individuals of the identified categories is totally unwarranted. He pointed out that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005, Members of Parliament and Assembly, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, members of All India Services and Working Journalists were already among the identified categories of persons whose groups or societies could be allotted land and argued that the amended policy cannot be dubbed as arbitrary and discriminatory simply because it envisages allotment of plots to individuals belonging to these identified categories.
We have considered the respective arguments and carefully examined the various G.Os. to which reference has been made by learned counsel for the parties.
Before proceeding further, we consider it necessary to mention that the petitioners have not questioned the constitutionality and vires the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.242 read with G.O.Ms.Nos.243 and 244, dated 28.2.2005, which envisaged allotment of land to societies or groups of the identified categories i.e. the Members of Parliament/Legislative Assembly, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, Members of All India Services, Journalists etc. and, therefore, it is not necessary to delve into the question whether the allotment to societies or groups of these categories offends any constitutional or statutory provision.
The core issue which requires consideration is whether the decision of the State Government to relax the conditions embodied in G.O.Ms.No.242 read with G.O.Ms.Nos.243 and 244, dated 28.2.2005 to facilitate allotment of land to the individuals belonging to the identified categories is constitutionally valid.
In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India[4], the Supreme Court explained the meaning of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and held:
"It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesse, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norms which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences, etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down."
The above noted proposition was reiterated in Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India (supra) filed for quashing the allotment of retail outlets for petroleum products (Petrol Pumps) by the Minister in exercise of his discretionary power. While striking down the allotments, the Supreme Court observed:
“The Government today - in a welfare State - provides large number of benefits to the citizens. It distributes wealth in the form of allotment of plots, houses, petrol pumps, gas agencies mineral leases, contracts, quotas and licences etc. Government distributed largesses in various forms. A Minister who is the executive head of the department concerned distributes these benefits and largesses. He is elected by the people and is elevated to position where he holds trust on behalf of the people. He has to deal with people's property in a fair and just manner. He cannot commit breach of the trust reposed in him by the people. We have no hesitation in holding that Capt. Satish Sharma in his capacity as a Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas deliberately acted in a wholly arbitrary and unjust manner. We have no doubt in our mind that Capt. Satish Sharma knew their allottees were relations of his personal staff, sons of Ministers, sons/relations of Chairmen and members of the Oil Selection Boards and the members of the Oil Selection Boards themselves. The allotments made by him were wholly mala fide and as such cannot be sustained.
While Article 14 permits a reasonable classification having a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, it does not permit the power to pick and choose arbitrarily out of several persons falling in the same category. A transparent and objective criteria/procedure has to be evolved so that the choice among the members belonging to the same class or category is based on reason, fair play and non arbitrariness. It is essential to lay down as a matter of policy as to how preferences would be assigned between two persons falling in the same category. If there are two eminent sportsmen in distress and only one petrol pump is available, there should be clear. transparent and objective criteria/procedure to indicate who out of the two is to be preferred. Lack of transparency in the system promotes nepotism and transparency in the system promotes nepotism and arbitrariness. It is absolutely essential that the entire system should be transparent right from the stage of calling applications upto the stage of passing the orders of allotment. The names of the allottees, the orders and the reasons for allotment should be available for public knowledge and scrutiny. Mr. Shanti Bhushan has suggested that the petrol pumps, agencies etc. may be allotted by public auction - category - wise amongst the eligible and objectively selected applicants. We do not wish to impose any procedure on the Government. It is a manner of policy for the Government to lay down. We however, direct that any procedure laid down by the Government must be transparent, just fair and non-arbitrary.”
In V. Purushotham Rao v. Union of India (supra), the Supreme Court referred to various orders passed in the case titled Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India (supra) and observed that review order passed in the case with the same title reported in (1996) 6 SCC 667 did not over-rule the earlier judgment reported in (1996) 6 SCC 530.
In New India Public School v. HUDA (supra), the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which quashed the allotment of land to the societies engaged in running the educational institutions on the premise that there was no policy or criteria for doing so. The Supreme Court referred to the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and Clause (3) of the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978, and held:
“A reading thereof, in particular Section 15(3) read with Regulation 3 (c) does indicate that there are several modes of disposal of the property acquired by HUDA for public purpose. One of the modes of transfer of property as indicated in sub-section (3) of Section 15 read with sub-regulation © of Regulation 5 is public auction, allotment or otherwise. When public authority discharges its public duty the word “otherwise” would be construed to the consistent with the public purpose and clear and unequivocal guidelines or rules are necessary and not at the whim and fancy of the public authorities or under their garb or cloak for any extraneous consideration. It would depend upon the nature of the scheme and object of public purpose sought to be achieved. In all cases relevant criterion should be pre-determined by specific rules or regulations and published for the public. Therefore, the public authorities are required to make necessary specific regulations or valid guidelines to exercise their discretionary powers; otherwise, the salutary procedure would be by public auction. The Division Bench, therefore, has rightly pointed out that in the absence of such statutory regulations exercise of discretionary power to allot sites to private institutions or persons was not correct in law.”
(Emphasis added)
We may now advert to the provisions contained in Rules 3 and 10 of the 1975 Rules. The same read as under:
“Rules 3 & 10 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Alienation of State Lands and Land Revenue Rules, 1975
3. General Principles:
a) Alienation of State land to a local body or local authority for unremunerative public purposes will ordinarily be allowed or made free of any initial charge for occupancy right (i.e.) free of the market value of or the value of the occupancy right in the land. Where, however, the land to be alienated has been previously acquired at the expense of the Government and in the case of alienation of land to local bodies or local authorities for remunerative public purposes and of alienation to a company, private individual or institution for any public purpose the question of collecting the market value of the land from the alienance will be considered.
b) No application for alienation of land under these Rules to a company, association, society, institution or any other corporate body should be considered unless such company, association, society institution or other corporate body has been registered under the Indian Companies Act VII of 1913.
c) Applications for alienation of lands for educational purposes whether from local bodies or local authorities (including Gram Panchayat) or from private associations or individuals should be addressed to the District Collector through the District Educational Officer in the case of institutions for boys and through the Inspectors of Girls Schools in the case of institutions for girls.
10. Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing rules, the Government may, if it desires to sell or otherwise alienate any of its lands or other property in Telangana Area, it may do so by following any reasonable procedure including public auction, where such alienation/sale is deemed necessary.”
A conjoint reading of the above reproduced rules shows that the State land can be alienated to a local body or local authority for unremunerative public purposes without charging price, but where the land acquired at the State expense is to be alienated for remunerative public purposes or to a company, private individual or institution for a public purpose, then the same could be done only by charging market value. Rule 10, which empowers the government to deviate from the other Rules, postulates that if the alienation is to be made otherwise than the procedure laid down in the other rules, then the government should follow a reasonable procedure including auction.
The policy contained in G.O.Ms.Nos.242, 243 and 244 dated 28.2.2005 was framed by the government because it was felt that due to growing urbanization, the cost of the land for housing has increased and owning of a plot for housing has become increasingly difficult for employees, middle class citizens and poor. With the object of making available land to identified categories, the government decided to create land bank. The government also issued detailed guidelines for allotment of land from the land bank. These guidelines envisaged allotment of land only to societies and groups and completely prohibited allotment of land to an individual. Another restriction put on the allotment of land was that the society or group should ensure filing of affidavit by their members to the effect that he/she has not received the benefit of concessional allotment from government earlier nor he/she was a member of a society/group to which concesional allotment was made. This is evinced from the contents of G.O.Ms.Nos.242 and 243 dated 28.2.2005, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:
G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 28.2.2005
REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT-I) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.242 Dated:28-02-2005
ORDER:
The Government have identified that there is an urgent need for prudent management of the land resource located in urban and semi urban areas. With the growing urbanization, the demand for land for housing need has become accentusted and many private persons are engaged in land developmenty. The resorted to tactics for artificial escalation of the prices of ;the land and thereby owning a plot for housing is becoming increasingly difficult for the employees, middle class citizens and poor. It is also found that some unscrupulous elements have grabbed the Government land or selling the Government lands with false documents, thereby duping the public.
2.Providing shelter is amongst the top priorities of the Government. There are well defined schemes for providing housing for the poor. In so far as meeting the requirement of the other deserving sections of the society, there is no fixed policy and mechanism for alienation of land to such sections and allotment was done case by case, for the land identified. Therefore, Government have decided to have a comprehensive policy of meeting housing requirement of targeted sections of society by creation of land bank and accordingly order the following:
The Land Bank shall be a land resource pooled for allotment to various Housing Co-operative Societies and other target groups. The following categories of land constitute the source for Land Bank:
(a)Government land fit for housing/institution, located in and around 120 Municipalities, with clear title. The land has to be within 25 K.Ms radius for “A” Categtory, 15 K.Ms. for “B” Category and 10 K.Ms. for “C” category Municipalities.
(b)Government land available with Departments, which is not being put to effective use such as Horticulture, Sericulture, Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Roads and Buildings, Tourism, Sick Industries etc. This land has to be resumed and put in the land bank.
(c) Surplus ceiling land at the disposal of the Government.
(d)Endowment Lands.
(e)Private lands acquired.
… … …
EMPOWERED COMMITTEE
The following Empowered Committee shall be vested with the powers to decide allotment of land; apportionment and usage based on hierarchy of needs and submit proposals to the Government:
1. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration … Chairman
2. Prl. Secretary to Government, Revenue Deptt. … Member
3. Prl. Secretary to Government, Finance Deptt. … Member
4. Prl. Secretary to Government, Municipal Admi-
nistration & Urban Development Deptt. … Member
5. Prl. Secretary to Government, Housing Deptt.… Member Convenor
6. Secretary (Services) to Government, G.A. Deptt. Member
In case the Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Housing Departments are headed by officers senior to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department can depute other Secretary of his Department, who is junior, and the Principal Secretary, Housing Department can depute the Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. Housing Board, to be their proxy on the Committee. The Committee can also co-opt the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Director of Town and Country Planning and any other officer as per the need.
PRICING OF THE LAND:
The Empowered Committee, while sending its recommendations for allotment of land from Land Bank in favour of Housing Co-operative Societies/Institutions, shall recommend the price to be fixed for the land proposed for allotment. While arriving at the recommended price the Empowered Committee shall take into account the acquisition cost of the land the activity of the beneficiary institution and demand for the land.
G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005
REVENUE (ASSIGNMENT-I) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.243 Dated:28-02-2005
In the G.O. sixth read above, orders were issued for creation of Land Bank to meet the housing and other Institutional requirements of the various sections of society. It was also ordered that separate orders would be issued pertaining to the methodology to be adopted for selecting the Housing Societies/Institutions for allotment and allenation of land out of land bank. Accordingly the following orders are issued:
APPROACH:
Government shall allot land for housing purpose and for institutional purpose. These two categories shall be dealt with separately. As far as housing is concerned, Government shall encourage allotment of land for house sites where the culture feasibility of independent house exists. Land shall be allotted for construction of flats, wherever culture for flats is in existence. The decision as to allot the land for house plots flats shall be decided based on the availability of land in the designated area.
In the Municipal Corporations of the State, viz., Hyderabad, Warangal, Vijayawada, Guntur, Rajahmundry, Visakhapatnam, Kurnool and Nellore, Government may alienate lands preferably for construction of flats in view of the scareity of land.
METHODOLOGY:
Land shall not be allotted in favour of individual beneficiary. The beneficiaries shall have to be formed into a group or co-operative Society for availing the facility of allotment of land for a flat/house site. A society or a Group shall have a minimum of 12 eligible members. The applications for flat/house site shall have to be made to the concerned Collector & District Magistrate. The Collectors in turn shall obtain necessary approval, for withdrawal and allotment of land from out of Land Bank, from the Empowered Committee and Government. After approval of the Empowered Committee and the Government, further action would be taken by the Collector to make the scheme operational.
AREA OF ALLOTMENT:
In so far as the Societies in which Judges, MPs, MLAs, All India Services Officers of Andhra Pradesh cadre and Officers (natives of Andhra Pradesh) of other States cadres who worked with Government of Andhra Pradesh on deputation, Officers of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Journalists, land shall be provided in the satellite towns (of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts) to be a developed by HUDA, APHB or other Urban Development Agency on cost basis.
The land situated in Prime locations of Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy Districts will henceforth be allotted only for Government organizations, public purposes or for institutional use. Government lands located within the proposed outer ring road will not be allotted for house sites either for group of individuals or co-operative housing societies.
CATEGORISATION FOR PRICING:
I.MLAs, MPs, Judges of Supreme Court and High Court, All India Services Officers.
II. Accredited Journalists from recognized and registered newspapers.
III. State Government Employees and Panchayat Raj Teachers working in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
IV) Recognised National and International Sports persons and eminent persons in the field of Culture and Arts.
V) Defence Employees, Central Government employees and employees of PSUs.
VI) Widows of Kargil and other war heroes and extremist violence who are hailing from Andhra pradesh.
VII) Waker Sections
VIII) Institutions – Educational/Charitable/Religious etc.,
The land shall be allotted to the categories figuring at Sl.No.1I to IV at the basic vlue of the land; for category V and VIII at prevailing market value; for category VI on free of cost and for category VII as per the policy of the Government in vegue. The acquired land shall be alienated on cost basis, which means that the actual cost paid to the landowners shall be fixed as cost of land
CONDITIONS OF ALLOTMENT:
I) The land shall be allotted in favour of Socieities/Groups. It shall be the responsibility of the Societies/Groups to ensure that its member are seeking allotment of land for the first time. All the members shall have to file an affidavit stating that he/she has not received the benefit of concessional allotment from Government earlier nor he/she was a member of any society/group to which concessional allotment was made. He/she shall also give an undertaking that he/she not avail such facility in future.
II) The Societies shall complete the process of allotment of house sites within a period of six months from the date of alienation of the land
III) A beneficiary, who is allotted a house site shall have to compete the house within a period of two (2) years from the date of allotment of house site by the Society/Group.
IV) In case of flats, the Society shall be responsible for completion of construction of flats within a period of two (2) years from the date of allenation of land by the Government. This may be done directly or through any other agency agreed upon by members.
V) Any beneficiary, who is allotted a house site/flat, shall not have any right to sell the same for a period of fifteen (15) years.
Although the above reproduced G.Os. do not make a specific reference to Rule 10 of the 1975 Rules, the source of the policy contained therein can be traced in the non-obstante clause contained in that rule.
By the G.O. impugned in the writ petition, the restrictions contained in the policy enshrined in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 have been completely relaxed and provision has been made for allotment of land to individuals without any constraint. This is clearly borne out from the contents of the impugned G.O. and Appendix attached to it, the relevant portions of which read as under:
G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 4.5.2006
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABSTRACT
And-Allotment of Government land to an extent of Acres 245.00 in certain Villages of Ranga Reddy District for providing house sites, in favour of Judges of High Court of A.P.; M.Ps; M.L.As.’ serving pre 1989 left over All India Services batches’ serving post 1989 All India Services Officers’ People of eminence; and Media persons – Orders – Issued.
REVENUE (ASN-V) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.522, Dt.04.05.2006
Read the following:
1. From the Collector, Ranga Reddy District Lr.No.LCI/2715/2004, dt.16.6.2004
2. From the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Lr.No.BB1/886/2004, dt.13.8.2004
3. Representations made by various individuals/Group of individuals of different fields.
4. Fax Message No.27587/Asn.V (1)/2004 dated29.4.2006.
***
O R D E R:
Basing on the representations made by various individuals/Group of individuals from different fields i.e. Judges of High Court of A.P. /M.Ps./MLAs./All India Service Officers/People of eminence and Journalists. The Collector, Ranga Reddy District has furnished proposals to Government, for allotment of Government land, for housing purpose, on payment of basic value, through the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad.
2. Government after careful examination of the proposals of the Collector, Ranga Reddy District / Chief Commissioner of Land Administration hereby direct for allotment of Govt. land to an extent of Acres 245.00 in various villages of Ranga Reddy District, in favour of Judges of High Court of A.P., M.Ps., M.L.A., Serving pre 1989 left over AIS batches, Serving Post 1989 All India Services Officers; serving AIS officers of other cadre with A.P. nativity; People of eminence and Working Journalists with print/electronic media etc. as one time benefit as per their eligibility, in relaxation of orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.243, Revenue (Asn.I) Department, dated 28.3.2005, subject to the guidelines and filing of an Affidavit (Proforma –I) & Affidavit (Proforma-II) appended to this order.
… … …
APPENDIX
(To G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Asn.V) Department, dated 04.5.2006)
GUIDELINES ONALLOTMENT OF GOVERNMENT LAND TO MLAs/MPs/JUDGES OF HIGH COURT OF A.P./AIS OFFICERS/JOURNALISTS
Government have decided to allot land for house sites, as one time benefit measure, to members of the four institutions of democracy viz., Legislature, Judiciary, Executive and Press, as welfare measure. This flow of one time benefit is irrespective of his other private possession to ensure equity and avoid discrimination.
I. PROPOSED CATEGORIES FOR LAND ALLOTMENT:
1) Members of Legislative Assembly
i) Sitting
ii) Ex.MLAs., including widows of the deceased MLAs.
2) Sitting Members of Parliament from Andhra Pradesh State (Sitting as on the date of issue of G.O.)
i) Lok Sabha
ii) Rajya Sabha
3) Judges of High Court of Andhra Pradesh
4) All India Service Officers:
a) Left over Serving AIS Officers of pre-1989 batches in order of seniority.
b) Serving AIS Officers of post-1989 batches as per seniority.
c) Serving AIS Officers of other cadre with A.P. Nativity working/ worked on deputation in A.P.
5) Persons of eminence:
Sports persons of International repute, Arjuna Awardees, persons who rendered distinguished service to the State and such other eminent categories, as decided by the State Government.
6) Journalists:
a) Working journalists with print and electronic media, based at Hyderabad.
b) Working journalists of Telugu Newspapers based at New Delhi.
c) Photographers of Newspapers based at Hyderabad.
d) Videographers of Television Channels based at Hyderabad.
II. LAND AVAILABILITY AND EARMARKING OF LAND
Sy.No.
Location
Extent of land
Acs.
Earmarking
Approximate Number of House-sites
276
149
Puppalaguda
Nanakramguda
@ 500 sq. yards
6 Nos./acre
72.00
38.00
M.Ps./M.L.As.
Judges of High Court of A.P. (39). People of eminence (126), left over serving officers of pre-1989 batches (in order of seniority – 63)
484
228
454/1
Puppalaguda
@ 500 sq. yards
6 Nos./acre
32.00
Post – 89 AIS Serving Officers as per seniority (170)
Serving AIS Officers of other cadre with A.P. nativity working/worked on deputation in AP (22)
192
132
Vattinagulapalli
@ 500 sq. yards 6 Nos./acre
33.00
(out of 50 acres left over)
Serving AIS Officers of post – 89 batches in order of seniority (132)
132
332
Nizampet
@ 300 sq. yds. 10 Nos./acre
32.00
Media persons in terms of professional seniority
320
25/2
Pet Bashirabad
@ 300 sq. yds.
10 Nos./acre
38.00
Media persons in terms of professional seniority
380
Total:
245.00
1736
III. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY:
a) Area to be allotted to each eligible person under Item I at Sl.No.1 to 6 is 500 sq. yards. Hoever, Ex.MLA as well as widows of the deceased MLAs will be allotted an extent of 300 sq. yards.
b) … … …
c) … … …
d) Members of the categories listed at Sl.No.3 to 6 under Item I, who have not availed any benefit of allotment of land in the twin cities of Hyderabad, Secunderabad and Ranga Reddy district or any other District are eligible to apply for allotment of plot.
e) All the sitting MLAs and sitting MPs will be given a plot provided they do not have any house or house site in Hyderabad and Secunderabad.
f) Each eligible person under Item I at Sl.No.3 to 6 to whom the land is being allotted shall file a Notarised affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper worth of Rs.10/- (rupees ten only) as given in Affidavit (Proforma-1).
g) Each eligible person at Item I at Sl.No.1 to 2 shall furnish a notarized affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.10/- (rupees ten only) as shown in Affidavit (Proforma-2).
… … …
G.O.Ms.No.1424, dated 28.9.2006 vide which G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 4.5.2006 was amended reads as under:
G.O.Ms.No.1424, dated 28.9.2006
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABSTRACT
Land – Allotment of Government land to an extent of Acres 245.00 in certain villages of Ranga Reddy District made for providing house sites, in favour of Judges of High Court of A.P.; M.Ps., MLAs; serving Pre 1989 left over All India Services batches; service Post 1989 All India Services Officers; People of eminence; and Media persons – certain modification / amendment to G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Asn.V) Department Dated 04-5-2006 – Issued.
REVENUE (ASN.V) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.1424 Dated: 28-9-2006
Read the following:
1. G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Asn.V) Department, Dated 04-5-2006
2. From the Secretary, A.P. High Court Judges’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Hosing Society Ltd., Representation dt.22-7-2006.
***
O R D E R:
Considering the request of the Secretary, A.P. High Court Judges’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., made in the reference 2nd read above, it has been decided that the land earmarked to the Judges of High Court of A.P. shall be made available to its members and also that the system of Committee under G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Asn.V) Department, Dt.04-5-2006 be dispensed with in their case.
2. Accordingly, in partial modification of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Asn.V) Department, dt.04-5-2006, Government hereby direct that the land earmarked to the Judges of High Court of A.P. shall be made available to the A.P.High Court Judges’ Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., for allotment to its members.
3. Government also clarify that “any member of my family” (words occurred in the Affidavit to G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Asn.V) Department, Dt.04-5-2006) means ‘the spouse and minor children”.
4. The following amendment is issued to G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Asn.V) Department, Dated 04-5-2006, with immediate effect:
AMENDMENT
The sub-para (2) under Para IV of the Appendix to G.O.Ms.No.522, Revenue (Asn.V) Department, Dt.04-5-2006 relating to “Sub-Committee on allotment of House sites to Judges of High Court of A.P.” shall be deleted.”
A reading of G.O.Ms.No.522 makes it clear that the decision of the government to relax the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 is intended to give undue benefit to the individuals belonging to identified categories who may not have been eligible for allotment of land in terms of the earlier policy. While no serious exception cannot be taken to allotment of land to the groups or societies comprising the identified categories of persons, including the Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, Judges of the Supreme Court and High Court, the members of All India Services, officers and employees of other categories, persons who have excelled in different fields of public life and sports and journalists, but there can be no rationale or justification for allotting land to the individuals irrespective of the fact that they may be possessing properties in different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh either in their own name or in the name of their spouse or children or they may have already been benefited by allotment of land at concessional rate either directly or through society. It is also interesting to note that for first two categories, all the restrictions have been removed except the one that they may not be having any house or house-site in Hyderabad or Secunderabad. This would mean that they are eligible for allotment of land even though they may have house or house-site in the name of their spouse or children or may have been benefited by allotment of land in other districts at concessional rate directly or indirectly. In respect of categories 3 to 6, partial restriction has been maintained in the form of Clause 3 (d), but even for these categories, there is no restriction on the allotment of land even though the allottees may be having house or house-sites either in their name or in the name of their spouse or children. There does not appear to be any plausible reason for not ensuring that the allotment of land in the name of providing house-sites to the needy people does not become a source of profiteering by those who already have house or house-site either in their own name or in the name of their spouse or children or who may have already been benefited by the policy of concessional allotment.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not explained as to why the restriction contained in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 has not been maintained in the matter of allotment of land to individuals. They have also not offered any justification for laying down different conditions for the identified categories and making invidious discrimination even among the beneficiaries of the State largess. It is, thus, evident that in the name of providing house-sites to the needy persons of identified categories, the State Government has tried to distribute largess to them.
In our considered view, the revised policy has nothing to do with the public interest. Rather, it is intended to favour certain individuals at the cost of public revenue. Needless to say that if the land proposed to be allotted to the individuals of the identified categories by relaxing the minimum restrictions is sold by public auction, the State will garner revenue of many hundred crores, which could be utilized for the benefit of different sections of the society.
The argument of the learned Advocate General that restriction against the allotment of land to those who already own house or house-site either in their name or in the name of their spouse or children in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been relaxed in order to treat all the persons of identified categories equitably is wholly meritless. How can the State offers a justification for relaxation of a rationale, reasonable and just restriction in the matter of allotment of land to the haves of the society when even those who are allotted miniscule parcels of land or house-sites or houses under schemes like Indiramma or Rajeev Gruhakalpa are not treated eligible if they already own house-site etc. In our opinion, there is no valid ground or justification to accept such distorted interpretation of the doctrine of equality, which is one of the basic edifice of the Constitution. Such policy may have been in tune with the rustic simplicity of bygone days when the Kings and Rulers were absolute owners of the public property and they enjoyed unbridled power to distribute State largess to the persons of their choice and liking, but it is wholly incompatible with the modern democratic set up of this country, which is governed by a written Constitution and which makes a promise to the people that there shall be justice - Social, Economic and Political – and Equality of Opportunity and of Status. The allotment of land to those who already own house or house-site either in their name or in the name of their spouse or children or who may have already been benefited by concessional allotment, directly or indirectly, lends credibility to the plea of the petitioners that such allotments are totally opposed to the concept of equality, fairness and public interest.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and G.O.Ms.No.522, dated 04.5.2006 is quashed insofar as it provides for allotment of land to individuals, who are not members of the societies/groups and who may have received the benefit of concessional allotment from the government earlier or as member of any society or group to which concessional allotment was made. G.O.Ms.No.1424, dated 28.9.2006 whereby the land has been earmarked for respondent No.4 is declared to be in consonance with the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 subject to the rider that all the restrictions contained in that G.O. will apply to the allotment of land by respondent No.4 to its members. The government will also do well to incorporate an additional restriction against the allotment of land to those who own house or house-site in their own name or in the name of their spouse or children and make the same applicable to the allotment made to respondent No.4 and all future allotments, which may be made in accordance with the policy enshrined in G.O.Ms.Nos.242 and 243 dated 28.2.2005.
However, it is made clear that this order of ours will not preclude the government from making allotment to societies or groups of the identified categories in accordance with the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005 and it will be open to the identified categories of persons to form new society and get the same registered or make applications as groups for the purpose of allotment of land in terms of the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.243, dated 28.2.2005.
Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to mention that the provision contained in the impugned G.O. for processing of the applications of the individual High Court Judges by the sub-committee comprising Advocate General, Secretary, Legal Affairs and Registrar General, A.P. High Court, with seniormost among them being its Chairman had the pernicious effect of demeaning the status of the members of the superior judiciary and seriously eroding the confidence of the common man in the system of administration of justice because, then the individual Judges would have been required to make applications for allotment of land to the government and their applications would have been processed by a committee comprising two officers who are constitutionally subordinate to the High Court. It is a matter of satisfaction that the government has taken corrective measure, removed the offending clause and earmarked the land for respondent No.4, which is bound to be allotted to the members of the said respondent, who do not suffer from any disability incorporated in G.O.Ms.No.243 and the restriction, which may be imposed by the government in terms of the observations made in this order.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
October 8, 2007
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
svs
[1] (1996) 5 SCC 510
[2] (1996) 6 SCC 530
[3] (2001) 10 SCC 305
[4] (1979) 3 SCC 489
November 29, 2007 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...
Enough is enough. Better do what ever efforts unitedly. Dont try to play mudslining game. Dont blame each other. findout a way out democratically. All the poor journos are eagerly waiting for a piece off land. Dont spoil the chances. If not now it will be never sort. Both gangs done mistakes. It is tme to rectification.
A well wisher of Journo Community
November 29, 2007 2:09 PM
Anonymous said...
brothers...
Amar kaani, Reddy kaani anni sanghalu petta galigarante adanta mana vallane kada. Manam lekapote em chestaru.
Ikanaina kallu teravandi. Nijamgaa manaku melu jarigela vyavaharinchandi. Ee tagadalu, potalatalaku inka chaala time vundi. Mundu sites sangati telchandi. Nijamaina journos nasta pokunda sincere gaa prayatniddam. Anduku vibhedaalanu veedi ekamavudam. Sites vacchaka meeku durada teere daaka gokkunduru gaani.
One more thing... Journos listulo andarinee joppinche prayatnalu chestunnaru. Jagratta.
November 29, 2007 3:14 PM
Anonymous said...
YSR is a man with real Heart.He is adopting delaying tactics because of his benifit. No wrong in that as 70% of media is against him. But he is still willing to do something for the scribes.
It is not good for all of us to have infighiting at all.This would be taken as an advantage by others.
I can say in 50years of telugu media, AP media supported baisedly TDP, NTR and CBN. Let's put a period for this, try to be un baised, it is all with us and we can do it
November 29, 2007 5:09 PM
Anonymous said...
tv5 ammesaru....
November 29, 2007 5:58 PM
Anonymous said...
TV5 is sold is correct news.It is sold for 25 crore rupees.
November 29, 2007 7:33 PM
Anonymous said...
No as of now, Surya has no e-Edition
Thanks
Tulasi
November 29, 2007 7:50 PM
Anonymous said...
Baaabu
We will do it, kaani maaa gonthu nokkesthunnaaru kadaaa? Dramoji and Chandra Krishna(RK)
Insider
Dappu Rajyam
November 29, 2007 7:52 PM
Anonymous said...
AJ scene has been changed.Papam Allam Naryana.......He is discomfort with changes,but he doesn't have any openings.Day by day Krishnamurthy is growing in the desk.pichi Allam waiting for january month to cross KM salary.
But one thing his mind has stagnated.He is very poor in creation.
November 30, 2007 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...
See today chandra jyothi
surveys pai stories allaru.Bajana babu ku bagundanta. ysr ledanta. pichipuku raathalu..picha lay out.
rey rk people opinion ni mold cheyadaniki nii paper capacity saripodu.
November 30, 2007 10:24 AM
Anonymous said...
for real news of ysr visit ... http://ysrlive.blogspot.com/
November 30, 2007 10:25 AM
bujji said...
Flash..Flash
ntv ammesaru
November 30, 2007 11:06 AM
Anonymous said...
New ratings Gemininews is bigger tha ntv and tv5.After Satishbabu come viewership will hit roof.Gemininews jindabad.
November 30, 2007 11:31 AM
Anonymous said...
New channels coming. Be ready boss.
Satyatv, Rajnews, Rayudutv, Asianetnews, zeenewstelugu,Maanews,Indiratv,Andhrajyothytv.Ika jobs jobs..Demand for double salary.Journalistski pandaga roju.
November 30, 2007 11:34 AM
Anonymous said...
Forming new societies and applying separately for sites means digging our own graves. please rally as a single team. Just because one or two vocal journalists of a particular camp are not members of the present society all others' opportunities should not be dented by them. Please chalk out a win-win strategy and spare us all some space to compete for sites. Once we get sites we want to bid adieu to this murky vocation for ever.
November 30, 2007 11:54 AM
Anonymous said...
http://www.exchange4media.com/e4m/news/Newfullstory.asp?section_id=5&news_id=28679&tag=23586
Andhra Jyothi plans Telugu news channel, editions in Mumbai and Delhi
November 22, 07
Judy Franko
Andhra Jyothi, one of the three Telugu dailies from Andhra Pradesh, will be launching a Telugu news channel in the first quarter of 2009, revealed V Radhakrishna, Managing Director of Amoda Publications Ltd, which is the publisher of Andhra Jyothi. The Group is also planning to foray into Mumbai and Delhi markets.
According to Radhakrishna, “A news channel is on our agenda and we will utilise the infrastructure available with us to launch it. We are also planning to launch editions in Mumbai and Delhi in the first quarter of 2008.”
Currently, there are 21 editions of the daily, 19 of which are published from Andhra Pradesh, and one each from Bangalore and Chennai. The newspaper recently launched an edition in Mahaboob Nagar and set up its 21st printing centre there. Andhra Jyothi claims to have a circulation figure of 4,60,000.
The newspaper has recently undergone a complete makeover, wherein all its 12 pages have been made colour. The newspaper has reportedly invested around Rs 80 crore to double the production capacity, and has plans to increase the circulation by 200,000-250,000 copies in the next eight months.
The newspaper also unleashed a glitzy marketing promotion recently, announcing prizes worth Rs 2 crore. “We are doing this as a token of gratitude to our readers who have patronised Andhra Jyothi and have helped us grow faster over the last five years,” added Radhakrishna.
After a noticeable exit, Andhra Jyothi was re-launched on October 15, 2002 from six centres – Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Vijayawada, Vishakapatnam, Tirupati and Anandhapur. Since its re-launch following Radhakrishna’s takeover of the then defunct publication, the daily has registered substantial growth and is now being published from 21 centres.
November 30, 2007 12:08 PM
Anonymous said...
Comedy of the day
"I can say in 50years of telugu media, AP media supported baisedly TDP, NTR and CBN
"
50 years - TDP, NTR, CNB anta...
November 30, 2007 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...
http://ysrlive.blogspot.com/
This is a good blog
Ilaaa okka blog ayenaaa...vundaaa
Bolli Baabu ku and Necchudu RK ku
Keep watching this blog.
RK gaadu survey cheyenchaadata TDP gurinchi, Re Kameena Krishna, neeku rojulu daggara paddaye raaa...idi nijam?
Ee roju, CJ hedlines lo....bagaaa rayinchavu raaa...picchi puku raathalu. Idi journalimaaaa? Picchi pooku naaa kodakaaa
November 30, 2007 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...
CJ headlines adurs
What a paper?
November 30, 2007 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...
AJ oka news paper kaaadu, adi oka TDP palmplet ani eee roju telisi poyendi
I am planning to put my resignation papers on the desk.
RK gaadi ki viluvalu levoooch
November 30, 2007 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...
CJ lo eee news radaaaa?
http://www.andhrabhoomi.net/mhead1.html
November 30, 2007 4:25 PM
Anonymous said...
RK Channel pettedi, vunna AJ nu muncha daani ke
Employes velli povada me better
November 30, 2007 6:20 PM
Anonymous said...
"I can say in 50years of telugu media, AP media supported baisedly TDP, NTR and CBN
"
50 years - TDP, NTR, CNB anta...
any doubts?
Yama Donga
November 30, 2007 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...
8 new news channels are entering Telugu market.Do we have such a market here?
Nandu
November 30, 2007 7:58 PM
Tulasi said...
may not be relavant here, but may be of your interest
APJ is now in media, for betterment of nation.
http://www.abdulkalam.com/kalam/jsp/ViewPage.jsp?beatsid=2&req_date=11-30-2007&titlename=Billionbeats%20Issue1
Thanks
Tulasi
November 30, 2007 8:37 PM
Anonymous said...
Ramoji decided not to hike the salaries. Dear eenadu journos donot waste your time in utter waste organization. Search for good venues. It is waste to spend your time in eenadu.
Journalists well wisher
November 30, 2007 10:49 PM
Anonymous said...
Eenadu's kv is leaving for surya. This is confirmed news. This is the tactic played by nookarapu to give a big blow to eenadu. Along with kv- two big eenadu middle managers are leaving for that paper. This is Nookarapu tactic. He is taking one rubbish, to have two big guns in his pocket. kudos to nookarapu.
- anveshi
November 30, 2007 10:55 PM
Anonymous said...
Oka pedda joku choodandi ikkada, take a big breath ..start reading
--------------------------------
There is a openion poll in called in CJ, such a pathatic cheating, have never seen...i have voted to congress for at least 30 times by closing the browser. If you try to vote in the same session it will dispaly a message saying that "You have alredy voted, we donot encourage e-Rigging"
This can be tracked because of IP address or by a session, and then one can display a message.
But surpraisingly my machine takes the IP address dynamically when ever my connection is released and plugged back again. This way my IP address is different for all 30 times.
Each time have closed the browser to kill my session where Server can not recognize the session. did same for all 30 times.
Ok, we will accept that there will be many votes polled, but not more than 150 votes.
As soon as we open the browser and refresh the RESULTS must be refreshed. Which is not happening, you can observe the same.
Looks the refresh is happening manually by CJ insiders.
So morale of the story is
Janaaalanu inthagaaa verri pukulanu cheyyaleru.
PICCHI GUNTLA PAPER, PICCHI GUNTLA WEBSITE
Honest Journo
November 30, 2007 11:48 PM
Anonymous said...
Sateesh Babu garu, mee team nu gemini news lo dinchadaaniki enni kashtaalu padutunnaaru. Mee bhajana gaallato mana rating periginatlu raayinchadam correct antaaraa ? Meeru challenge chesinatlu teliyagaane mee brundam rating penchutunnadi. Rating lekkalu vese vaallu mandu party ki longite mee vaallu poyinchagalaru gaani vaallu longaru. Andukani mee vaallu ila channel peru peragataaniki ilanti cheap tactics cheyatam samarthistaaraa ?
December 1, 2007 8:28 AM
Post a Comment
Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) AP MEDIA WAR
View my complete profile
Request to Site Visitors
Please write to us, if you feel that any comment or news item on this site has objectionable content. Those comments / news will be promptly removed from our site.
Our mail id is apmediatruth@gmail.com
How media manipulates the truth
Media has always intirigued by its way of manipulating and twisting truths in a coverage.How does media blow things out of proportion when a sensational piece of news is uncovered.Is giving truth and only the truth too difficult for the media to do?Is it necessary for them to alter it according to their liking?
