Land Regularisation Scheme A Policy Decision, State Has Absolute Power To Amend It Before Any Legal Right Is Vested In Applicants: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court has held that the scheme of regularisation with respect to land encroachments is a policy decision of the State and the State has absolute power to amend or change such scheme before any right has been made absolute in favour of an applicant.Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy added that the mere act of filing an application did not vest the petitioners with the right to...
The Telangana High Court has held that the scheme of regularisation with respect to land encroachments is a policy decision of the State and the State has absolute power to amend or change such scheme before any right has been made absolute in favour of an applicant.
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy added that the mere act of filing an application did not vest the petitioners with the right to claim regularisation or to seek their application to be processed by a date they decide.
“…mere filing application do not vest the petitioners with right to claim regularisation and that application should be processed as per certain rate. It is the prerogative of the Government to change the rate at any time before the decision is taken for regularisation of such plots.”
The Court passed the order in a batch of petitions challenging the collection of basic value ‘as on the date of application’ for certain applicants and basic value ‘as of 2014’ for other applicants under the scheme of regularisation by Government Order as arbitrary and illegal.
The G.O aimed at regularising and transferring rights on land encroachment on unobjectionable Government lands, surplus land, and Urban Land Ceiling lands to the people who have been in possession since on or before June 2014, for payment of an amount.
Collection rates were also fixed in the G.O. for residential and non-residential land based on the basic value of land as of 2014. Subsequently, in 2022, the State issued another G.O. 14 of 2022 and extended the date of the scheme as offered under G.O. 59 of 2014.
The lead case involved a petitioner who applied for the regularization of a plot of land under a government scheme. The scheme was issued on 30.12.2014 and allowed for the regularization of encroachments on certain government lands based on possession before 02.06.2014, with specific rates based on the size and type of land.
The petitioner received a demand notice from the District Collector to pay a substantial amount for regularization. The petitioner argued that the demand was excessive, as it was based on the current market value of the land in 2022, rather than the value as of 02.06.2014, as specified in G.O.
The government argued that the rates had been revised, and the market value as of the date of application in 2022 should be used. They also mentioned that applicants who had not filed for regularization for more than seven years were under consideration for changes in the scheme.
They contended that the petitioners were encroachers and did not have the right to seek direction to charge a rate that would be suitable to them. Further, even though the first G.O. for regularisation had passed in 2017, many applicants sat on their rights and only opted for regularisation in 2022, i.e., after a lapse of almost 7 years. Special GP argued that this could not be permitted due to the inflation of land value from 2017-2022.
It was brought to the notice of the Court that after extensive consideration, the State, due to a change in land valuation, decided to change the basic value rate as stipulated in G.O 14 of 2022, from ‘as of 2014’ to ‘as on date of application’ by way of G.O. 22 of 2023. The Government Pleader contended that the amendment was conveniently left out by the petitioners.
The petitioner replied to this argumeny saying that even if such amendment G.O. was passed, it was done so in the year 2023, subsequent to the date of application by the petitioners and as such, would not be applicable to the present case.
The Bench held,
“The scheme of regularisation (G.O. Ms. No.59) is a policy decision of the State and the State has absolute power to alter or amend the scheme before any legal right is vested in the applicant/s. Having realised that there are some mistakes and discrepancies in the operational guidelines issued under G.O. Ms. No.14, the Government has issued G.O. Ms. No.22 amending the basic market value to be the rate as on the date of application.”
Adding to that, Justice Vijaysen noted that if the petitioners sought to avail the scheme of regularisation, they either must be encroachers or in conflict with the State over the title and as such cannot claim the regularisation to be their fundamental right.
The Bench also noted that the market value has changed substantially, and hence the petitioners cannot claim that they are on parity with the applications made in 2014.
“Such contention is without any force. As noted above, the petitioners are encroachers or are in possession of the disputed Government lands, as such, no right accrues or vested in them merely because they have submitted applications for regularisation.”
Thus, the court concluded that encroachers did not have a fundamental right to claim regularization at rates based on the 2014 values. The government had the authority to amend the scheme, and it clarified the confusion with G.O. Ms. No.22 issued on 01.03.2023.
The court also directed the petitioners to deposit the remaining 75% of the demanded amount within six weeks. It allowed petitioners to submit representations regarding calculation errors or rate issues, with the assurance that adjustments or refunds would be made if necessary.
The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Counsel for petitioner: L. Harish, Chetluru Sreenivas, Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, Gouravalu Anil Kumar, Rupendra
Counsel for Respondents: Special Government Pleader, Harender Pershad
Case Title: Eeranki Harika vs. State of TS & connected matters.