A GOVINDARAJULU Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 18.9.2001, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, dismissing the appeal in A.S. No.1 of 1999,confirming judgment and decree, dated 28.7.1998, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Penukonda, in O.S. No.17 of 1981, wherein the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the suit which was filed against the order of the sub- Collector, Penukonda, dated 1.12.1980, cancelling the order of allotment of the house, which was allotted to the plaintiff, as void and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule house bearing Door No.1-81 in Plot No.72, situated at G.I.C. Colony, Penukonda.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the defendants have constructed G.I.C. Colony and allotted the plots to the weaker sections in Penukonda town and the plaintiff has been allotted house No.1-81 in Plot No.72 and the plaintiff having constructed the house under the instructions of the Block Development Officer has been residing in the said house since 27.12.1979. Thereafter, one Rangappa, brother-in-law of the plaintiff, has been elected as Secretary to the association of G.I.C. Colony Owners, he had made several representations to the concerned authorities regarding the defective constructions of houses and has also published the corrupt practices in respect of the construction of houses in 'Andhra Prabha daily' newspaper. When the Block Development Officer, Penukonda, was in-charge of the construction work, he tried to persuade said Rangappa, but he did not yield to the pressures and that the Block Development Officer bore grudge against the said Rangappa and reported the matter to the Sub-Collector, Penukonda, complaining that the said Rangappa had occupied the house in Plot No.72 in the colony instead of plaintiff. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to the plaintiff stating that why the allotment of plot No.72 should not be cancelled. When the plaintiff was attended on his wife, who was admitted in hospital at Bellary for treatment, the notice was affixed to his house and thereafter, he has submitted his explanation with regard to the main allegation that the plaintiff is not residing in the house is false for the reasons mentioned in the plaint and that then the sub-Collector, Penukonda, issued orders, dated 1.12.1980, in RC.No.1201/79, cancelling the allotment of plot No.72 in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that he is not residing therein. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) According to the respondents, the Defendant No.2 filed his written statement admitting the construction of the G.I.C. Colony and allotment of plot No.72 to the appellant/plaintiff and construction of a house bearing door No. 1-81, but alleged that the appellant/plaintiff did not occupy the building with his family members, on the other hand during the enquiry by the Block Development Officer, it was found that one S.N. Rangappa was in possession of the suit house and that the plaintiff was only name-lender. The said Rangappa is neither eligible for allotment nor entitled to occupy the suit house. The other allegations made by the plaintiff were denied.