Point of law: As per Article 39 of the Constitution of India, the State shall direct its policy towards securing all the citizens equally, since "all have the right to adequate means of livelihood". It is the duty of the State to apply the Directive Principles in making the laws, since Article 39 specifies the directive principles of State policy required to be followed by the State.

ORDER:

1. The prestigious laudable flagship programme initiated by the State under the name and style of “Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu” is challenged initially by three petitioners by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, later petitioner Nos.4 to 129 came on record vide orders of this Court dated 03.08.2021 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2021, to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No.367 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department dated 19.08.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.488 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 02.12.2019 are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to assign/allot the plots under Constitutional transparent policy; consequently direct them not to proceed further in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.367 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 19.08.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.488 Revenue (Assignment-I) Department, dated 02.12.2019.

2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and other petitioners are residents of Tenali claiming that they are houseless poor, eking out their livelihood as daily labourer, living below poverty line. Petitioners have no property to take shelter or any other source of livelihood. Petitioners submitted a representation dated 25.10.2016 requesting respondent Nos.3 and 4 to allot house site, but no site was allotted to them. Consequently, they were constrained to file W.P.No.45475 and 46463 of 2016 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, to issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to assign house site plots. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad vide order dated 26.12.2016 disposed of the writ petition No.45475 of 2016 directing to consider their request for assignment of plots in Tenali Municipality area in accordance with law, if they are otherwise eligible and entitled for the said benefit. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, vide order dated 02.01.2017 disposed of W.P.No.46463 of 2016 with the same direction.

3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 received copy of the order, but failed to comply with the directions. Thereupon, the petitioners filed C.C.Nos.1353 and 1354 of 2017 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. Respondent No.4 filed counter alleging that the department made an enquiry to find out suitable land for acquisition and to allot the same, since suitable land was not found, it takes time to distribute the land. Both the CCs are pending before this Court now.

4. Petitioners again submitted a representation dated 03.06.2020 requesting respondent Nos.3 to 5 to assign house plots. Vide orders dated 26.12.2016 and 02.01.2017, respondent Nos.3 to 5 represented that they would consider their cases in “Navaratnalu programme (Pedalandariki illu)”. Having failed to receive any communication, the petitioners approached respondent No.4 requesting to consider their case in the ensuing programme, who in turn, though directed them to approach the authorities several times, failed to take any action. When one of the petitioners questioned respondent No.4 as to why the matter is being procrastinated, the authorities asked him to get out of the office using highly objectionable language and insulted him. Respondent No.4 has asserted that since the programme is only for the benefit of the women, they would only be considered and even for them one has to obtain a consent letter from the local Volunteer, which is seldom possible for the petitioners.

5. It is specifically asserted that the volunteers are openly asking whether the petitioners belong to the Ruling party, demanding money. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are fully supporting the version of the volunteers for the reasons known to them. Since the Tahsildar supported the version of volunteer, he was impleaded personally as respondent No.6. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are allotting the plots in favour of the persons, suggested by the volunteers, witho