Point of law: In order to bring about a uniform policy relating to resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced persons, under the projects, the policy of the Government so brought out in the year 2005 sets out the measures to meet this formidable challenge.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners, who are the displaced persons under Polavaram Irrigation Project, have sought a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in not extending financial assistance for construction of houses by them under resettlement and rehabilitation package fixed by the State Government under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 (for short the Act 30 of 2013).

2. The petitioners 1, 2 and 8 are teachers. The petitioners 3 and 9 are employed in Police Department. The petitioner No. 5 is a Lab Assistant and the petitioner No. 4 is a Physical Director. The petitioners 6 and 7 are Home Makers. They claim that they are all residents of Mamidigondi Village, Polavaram Mandal, West Godavari District.

3. Mamidigondi Village was affected by submergence under Indira Saagar Project, which is Polavaram Irrigation Project. The petitioners claim that they had permanent houses in this village and where they were residing, employed in different professions and positions. They were all evacuated from Mamidigondi village during the year 2014-15 on account of the land acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 2008.

4. By way of compensation, they were granted house site pattas by the Tahsildar, Polavaram Mandal in R.K. No. 270/2004, dated 24.09.2007 for the purpose of construction of houses, in resettlement zone, namely Gunjavaram village, Polavaram Mandal. This place is about 15 k.m. away from Mamidigondi Village.

5. Now the complaint of the petitioners is that they were not paid the cost of construction of houses in resettlement village though they were all project displaced members of different families under this project as per the package fixed by the State Government for resettlement and rehabilitation, under the Act 30 of 2013. The petitioners also state that a socio-economic survey was conducted for providing financial benefits under the above Act for affected families and the data collected in the year 2007 mentioned them, being Below Poverty Line (BPL) category. The petitioners also state that they belonged to Koya community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe under the Presidential Order relating to State of Andhra Pradesh and that they have been residing in the 5th schedule area as per the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioners further state that they have been requesting the respondents since the year 2015, claiming R&R benefits including the financial assistance for construction of houses without any response.

7. The petitioners further referred to G.O.Ms. No. 68, Irrigation and CAD (Project Wing-LA-IV-R&R) Department, dated 08.04.2005 which requires uniformity to be ensured in extending the benefits across the State under Resettlement and Rehabilitation package and as a comprehensive policy in a transparent manner. Referring to this policy, the petitioners claimed that initially the Government fixed financial assistance of Rs. 50,000/- for construction of houses, which was later on gradually increased to Rs. 4,55,000/- which benefit they are entitled to.

8. Their further complaint is that the respondents have not been heeding to their request stating that they are all gainfully employed and being Government employees, which is not correct. Reference is also made by the petitioners of a clarification by the Commissioner, R&R in his Letter CRR-11021/11/2016-SECA-CRR, dated 07.04.2017 to the District Collector, Srikakulam, entitling all those belonging to project displaced families irrespective of whether they belong to Above Poverty Line (APL) or Below Poverty Line (BPL) categories, a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners claim that to get their grievance redressed, they are constrained to approach this Court by means of this writ petition.

9. On behalf of the respondents, through the 7th respondent-Tahsildar, Polavaram, a counter affidavit is filed resisting the claim of the petitioner