Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 936 (AP)

Govt. of A. P. v. J. Sri Kumari

2002-07-30

DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, S.R.NAYAK

body2002
J U D G M E N T (per the Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.R. Nayak) These Writ Appeals are directed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.8.2000 in W.P.No. 25282 of 1999 and W.P.No.26673 of 1999. The background facts leading to the filing of these Writ Appeals may briefly be noted as under: The Writ petitioners and another person by name Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi were declared to be the land grabbers by an order dated 23.4.1998 in L.G.C. No. 139 of 1989 of the Special Court constituted under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, for short ‘ the Act’. However, the Special Court while disposing of the L.G.C. directed the Government to consider the case of the land grabbers for regularization of the lands occupied by them unauthorisedly on payment of appropriate value. In accordance with the above direction of the Special Court, the three land grabbers which included the writ petitioners made applications to the Government to regularize their possession on payment of appropriate value. In pursuance to the application of Smt.P.Vijaya Lakshmi, one of the land grabbers, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 980 Revenue (Assignment- III) Department dated 8.12.1998 fixing the value of the land at Rs.200/- per sq. yard for 672.56 sq. yards of land. However, no orders were passed on the applications made of the writ petitioners. In those circumstances, the petitioners filed W.P.No-2408 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 28.4.1999 with a direction to the Government to consider the case of the writ petitioners also in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.980 dated 8.12.1998. In pursuance of the said direction, the Government issued orders directing regularization of occupation of the land on payment of Rs.2500/- per sq. yard in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No. 25282 of 1999 and proposing to regularize occupation of the land in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.26673 of 1999 at the same rate i.e. Rs.2500/- per sq. yard. Being aggrieved by the rates fixed by the Government, W.P.No. 25282 of 1999 and W.P. 26673 of 1999 were filed. The action of the Government was assailed mainly on the ground that its action tantamounts to an invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. yard. Being aggrieved by the rates fixed by the Government, W.P.No. 25282 of 1999 and W.P. 26673 of 1999 were filed. The action of the Government was assailed mainly on the ground that its action tantamounts to an invidious discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge having held that the wit petitioners and Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi being the land grabbers and since all of them are similarly circumstanced, the Government was not justified in fixing different rates for regularization of the occupation of the lands. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge by the order impugned in these writ appeals directed the Government to fix and collect the value of the land @ Rs.200/- per sq. yard from the writ petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said direction, the Government has come up with these Writ appeals assailing the validity of the same. We have heard the learned Government pleader for Assignments and the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned Government Pleader for Assignments contended that Smt.P.Vijaya Lakshmi and the writ petitioners are not similarly circumstanced and therefore, the leaned Single Judge erred in law in holding that a case of discrimination is made out so as to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Government Pleader also contended that the writ petitioners have no vested right to claim regularization of the occupancy of the subject land and no mandamus would lie to the State Government either to regularize the occupation of the land by the writ petitioners or to fix the rate of the value of the land at a particular rate. In support of his contention, the learned Government Pleader placed reliance on an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.N0.545 of 1998 dated 9.4.1998. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Single judge. Since the guarantee of equal protection embraces the entire realm of ‘State action’, it would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of his right or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges i.e., granting licences for entering in to any business, inviting tenders for entering into contract relating to Government business or issuing quotas, giving jobs etc. It is trite that since the writ petitioners and Smt.P.Vijaya Lakshmi were declared to be the land grabbers, they could not seek regularization of the subject land as a matter of right or course, because, such a right is not vested in them. Here is a case where the Government itself in its wisdom and discretion has decided to regularize occupation of the land by the writ petitioners and Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi on payment of the value of the land. Therefore, the only and single question that arises before this court is whether in fixing the value of the land, the Government could make any discrimination between the writ petitioners and Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi. In order to answer this question, it becomes necessary to decide an incidental question i.e., whether Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi and the writ petitioners belong to the same class or they belong to different classes. It is necessary because, it is well settled that what Article 14 of the Constitution mandates is likes should be treated alike and not that dis-similarly circumstanced persons should be treated alike. Therefore, it becomes necessary to First, decide the incidental question whether the charge of invidious discrimination is well founded or not. As pointed out supra, in LGC No. 139 of 1989, the Special Court declared the writ petitioners, and Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi as the land grabbers and while declaring so, however, the Special Court directed the Government to consider the feasibility of regularizing the occupation of the subject land by the land grabbers on payment of the value of the land. In pursuance of the said direction, the Government thought it appropriate to regularize the occupancy of the land by the land grabbers. Nothing is placed before us to show that Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi and the writ petitioners are not similarly circumstanced. On the other hand, materials placed before the Court would clearly show in essence and substance that all the three land grabbers were similarly circumstanced. Likes should be treated alike is the constitutional creed flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution. If the Court Finds breach of this constitutional mandate, the Court is entitled to step in and correct the wrong administrative action. However, the learned Government Pleader would strenuously contend that Smt P.Vijaya Lakshmi cannot be said to be a person belonging to the class to which the writ petitioners belong. If the Court Finds breach of this constitutional mandate, the Court is entitled to step in and correct the wrong administrative action. However, the learned Government Pleader would strenuously contend that Smt P.Vijaya Lakshmi cannot be said to be a person belonging to the class to which the writ petitioners belong. Elaborating his submission, the learned Government Pleader contended that Smt.P. Vijaya Lakshmi is the wife of an I.A.S. Officer and her husband was not a member of the I.A.S. Officers Cooperative Society and, therefore, no plot was allotted in his favour and in those circumstances, the Government thought it appropriate to regularize the land in favour of Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi at a concessional rate of Rs.200/- per sq.yard. This reason stated by the Government in the counter and highlighted by the learned Government Pleader for Assignments could never be a valid and legally permissible ground to hold that Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi does not belong to the class to which the writ petitioners belong. Not a word is stated in the entire affidavit to show that Smt. P.Vijaya Lakshmi was at the relevant point of time was under any economic disability that warranted the State Government to show some extraordinary consideration and to grant the land at a concessional rate of Rs. 200/- per sq.yard. In the absence of such plea and proof, the Sate Government cannot act arbitrarily in the matter of fixation of the rate while regularizing the occupancy of the land in favour of the similarly circumstanced land grabbers. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is well founded. The un-reported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.545 of 1998 dated 9.4.1998 in no way advances the case of the State Government. We have perused the judgment of the Division Bench in the said Writ appeal. The question that fell for consideration in that writ appeal was whether the land grabber could as a matter of right or matter of course demand from the State Government to regularize the occupancy of the land in his favour on payment of value of the land. The Court quite rightly held that the land grabber does not have any legal right to seek mandamus. The Court quite rightly held that the land grabber does not have any legal right to seek mandamus. From that ratio, it cannot be said that the State Government can practise invidious discrimination while Fixing the rate of value of the land while regularizing the unauthorized occupation of the land grabbers who are similarly circumstanced. The Writ Appeals are devoid of merits and accordingly they are dismissed. No order as to costs. --X--