1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioners' request for issuance of NOC to sell the land admeasuring Acs.2.28 gts in Sy.No.44 of Anneparthy Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District, vide Memo No.016597/Assn.IV(2)/2008 dated 03.02.2010 and also the action of respondent No.2 in issuing Memo No.E1/936/2018, dated 26.04.2018, thereby rejecting the request of petitioners' pursuant to representations dated 08.02.2018 and 09.04.2018 for alienation of the aforesaid land, as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, to direct the respondents to grant permission to the petitioners to alienate the subject property, by considering their financial problems apart from on humanitarian grounds, by treating as a Special Case by suspending the Memo No.E1/936/2018, dated 26.04.2018 issued by respondent No.2.

2. Heard Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment.

3. The succinct facts of the case as averred in the writ affidavit are that while the father of the petitioners was working as Taluka Public Relations Officer, at Nalgonda, on 17.01.1979, some communal riots took place; and that on completion of rounds, when he was on his way to home, he was stabbed to death by some miscreants, due to which he died instantaneously; that considering the same, the Government has granted patta of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.5.00 gts in Sy.No.44 of Anneparthy Village, Nalgonda Mandal and District, which includes the subject property, as ex gratia to the mother of the petitioners; and that during her life time, she made application to the respondents requesting to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) to enable her to alienate the patta land, but the same was rejected.

               3.1. It is further averred that after the death of their mother on 27.08.2016, the petitioners being her legal heirs succeeded to the subject property and accordingly, on their application, their names were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject property.

               3.2. It is further averred that the petitioners made series of representations dated 04.10.2017, 08.02.2018 and 24.02.2018 to respondent No.2 requesting to issue NOC, to enable them to alienate the subject property, by considering the same as the assignment patta issued to Ex-service men/freedom fighters and further, requesting to apply GO.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, which enumerates the guidelines governing the allotment of assigned lands to ex-service men/freedom fighters, as per which, the said persons are entitled to alienate the assigned lands after a period of ten years., however, respondent No.2 rejected their application only on the ground of rejection of similar application submitted by their mother earlier, and without assigning any proper and cogent reasons.

               3.3. It is further averred that the petition filed by the petitioners on 09.04.2018 seeking to grant NOC was received by respondent No.2, but, the same was rejected by the impugned orders without taking into consideration the earlier recommendation to treat their case as special case, akin to assignment granted to ex-service men/freedom fighters. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that undisputably, the subject property was allotted as ex gratia to the mother of the petitioners on the death of their father in communal riots while he was in service; that the said allotment was in the year 1997; that the mother of the petitioners, during her life time, has approached the authorities for issuance of NOC to enable her to sell away the subject property, but in vain.

               4.1. He further submitted that the petitioners being the legal heirs of their mother, after her death, have made series of representations before respondent No.2 ventilating their financial difficulties, particularly, the expenses for treatment of petitioner No.3, who is mentally retarded and to consider their case on humanitarian grounds by treating as a special case and by applying the conditions stipulated for ex-service men/freedom fighters in GO.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, however, respondent No.2 has rejected the said representations on the sole premise that the earlier representation made by the mother of the petitioners was rejected.

               4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that the subject property was given as ex gratia to the bereaved family of the petitioners as a financial assistance for their sustenance; that as of now, 20 years passed away from the date of allotment in the year 1997, but, even then, the petitioners were not permitted to sell away the subject property to meet their financial diffculties, particularly, to bear the expenses for treatment of petitioner No.3 who is suffering with mental illness and therefore, the rejection of request of petitioners for grant of NOC is illegal and arbitrary exercise of power by the respondents and prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignments submitted that as per the conditions stipulated in the assignment patta granted to the mother of the petitioners, the subject property is only heritable, but not alienable. He further submitted that the representation made by the mother of the petitioners for grant of NOC was considered by the hierarchal authorities and ultimately, the Government rejected the same; that the petitioners have once again made representations seeking similar relief and hence, respondent No.2 has rightly rejected their petition, since there is no change of circumstances.

               5.1. He further submitted that respondent No.2 by the impugned Memo rejected the request of the petitioners for grant of NOC by apprising the petitioners that earlier, similar request made by their mother was examined and the same was ultimately rejected by the Government and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of NOC for the subject property. Thus, there is no arbitrary exercise of power by respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned Memo and the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned Memo, warranting interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6. The core issue that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of NOC by treating the subject property allotted to them as a special case and by application of the guidelines enumerated in GO.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993

7. Undisputably, the subject property was assigned to the mother of the petitioners as compensatory measure for the death of their father while on duty. The mother of the petitioners during her life time has sought to alienate the subject property and accordingly, she made representation to the authorities concerned for issuance of NOC, but the same was rejected. The petitioners being the legal heirs of their mother, have again made series of representations before respondent No.2 seeking issuance of NOC to alienate the subject property by projecting their financial difficulties, particularly, the mental illness of petitioner No.3, for which they require substantial amount for her treatment. Petitioner No.3 is unmarried and is aged about 62 years as of now and added to that, she is said to be suffering from mental illness. These circumstances are not rebutted by the respondents.

8. The specific request of the petitioners is to consider their case on humanitarian grounds and treat the assignment patta granted to them as a special case and by application of the conditions specified in GOMs.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, issued to ex-service men/freedom fighters, particularly, the condition which permits the allottee thereunder to sell away the allotted land after a period of ten years from the date of such allotment.

9. In the instant case, respondent No.2 has straight away rejected the petition made by the petitioners by the impugned Memo on the sole ground that earlier, a similar representation made by the mother of the petitioners was examined and the same was ultimately, rejected by the Government. The impugned Memo is silent as to his advertence to the request of the petitioners for consideration of their case in terms of GO.Ms.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993.

10. As a matter of fact, the patta certificate granted to the mother of the petitioners contains a condition that the land assigned thereunder is heritable, but not alienable. Admittedly, the subject property was assigned to the mother of the petitioners, on humanitarian grounds, for the benefit of the bereaved family, as her husband was brutally murdered in communal riots while he was on duty.

11. In this regard, it is trite to refer to the correspondence that ensued between various hierarchal authorities in respect of the subject property. Respondent No.3 has submitted a report dated 15.12.2007 to respondent No.2 stating that the assignment was made as a exgratia for the benefit of the deceased government employee, who was murdered in communal riots, and the said assignment was on humanitarian grounds. Subsequently, in the correspondence sent by respondent No.2 dated 22.12.2007 to the Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, it is categorically stated to the above effect. In turn, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has forwarded the report of respondent No.3, recommendation of respondent No.2 as well as the representation of the petitioner to the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Assgn.I) Department, duly stating that this is not a normal case of assignment of government land to a landlass poor and this is a special case, as seen from the report of respondent No.2, and accordingly, recommended to consider the case sympathetically granting permission to alienate the subject property. However, ultimately, it appears that the Government rejected to grant the relief sought for. All these have driven the petitioners to once again submit representation/s seeking the same prayer as sought by their mother for treating their case as that of assignment granted to ex-service men/freedom fighters, which enable them to sell away the assigned land after a period of ten years.

12. The aforesaid communication between the hierarchal revenue authorities reflect the fact that the subject property was granted as ex gratia to the bereaved family of the deceased Government employee for their benefit. The patta is granted to the mother of the petitioners as exgratia to support their family, and hence, the said patta cannot be equated to the patta granted to landless poor persons, which invariably contains the non- alienability clause. Usually, for the employees, be it Central or State Government, who die/sustain injuries while in performance of their bona fide official duty, a lumpsum amount will be paid as ex gratia/ compensation to the bereaved family for financial support and sustenance of the family who lost their bread winner. In the instant case, the patta was granted to the mother of the petitioners in lieu of the lumpsum amount, for the death of the deceased Government employee while he was on official duty. Therefore, incorporation of condition of non-alienation therein is not justified.

13. Further, it is to be noted that ex-service men/freedom fighters are assigned lands in recognition of their services rendered to the country and the said assignees are permitted to sell away the assigned land after a period of ten years from the date of allotment. This condition appears to be incorporated for the benefit of the assignees.

14. In the instant case, as already stated supra, the patta granted cannot be treated as the one granted to landless poor, which invariably contains non-alienation clause. On the other hand, the patta being given as a compensatory measure for the death of the deceased Government employee has to be treated as ex gratia, in the form of financial assistance for the bereaved family. Therefore, in the interest of justice and on humanitarian grounds, the case of the petitioners needs to be treated as a special case and the condition of non-alienation clause contained in the patta has to be ignored and the petitioners deserve to be given NOC enabling them to alienate the subject property, as would be permitted in case of ex-service men/freedom fighters.

15. In the impugned memo, respondent No.2 has not adverted to the request of the petitioners to treat their case as special case and grant NOC to the petitioners, to sell the subject property, as being extended to ex-service men/freedom fighters in GOMs.No.1117, dated 11.11.1993, and without assigning any reasons, rejected their request on the sole ground that earlier, a similar representation made by mother of the petitioners was rejected. This action of respondent No.2 is wholly arbitrary and in unjustifiable.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Memo No.016597/Assn.IV(2)/2008 dated 03.02.2010 and Memo No.E1/ 936/2018, dated 26.04.2018, issued by respondent No.2 are hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioners for grant of NOC positively and pass orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

17. The observations in this order are made taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and hence, the same cannot be treated as precedent.

18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.