President v. Revenue Department , Secretariat , Hyderabad

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8843 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in contemplating to issue lease orders in favour of the third parties in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.64.00 in Survey Nos.231/C and 231/1 situated at Polekurru Village, Thotapeta Mandal, East Godavari District without following due process of law as illegal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. The petitioner claims to have been registered in the year 1991 with 356 members belonging to weaker sections and landless poor comprising BC, SC and ST categories. It is avered that they have been in possession of an extent of Acs.80.00 in Survey Nos.231/C and 231/2 located in the vicinity of Tallarevu, that they have occupied the said lands more than thirty {30} years back and ever since, they have been cultivating the same. It is further avered that when Sri Bommadevera Raghava Rao and others, who claim to be the legatees of Valluri Rani, sought to trespass into the land through Dhulipudi Adinarayana, criminal cases and counter cases were filed against each others leading to initiation of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada, observed that the members of the petitioner are in possession of the property. It is further stated that Dhulipudi Adinarayana and six {6} others filed O.S.No.285 of 1991 against the members of the petitioner and an application filed for temporary injunction in the said suit was dismissed on

06.08.1991. When revenue officials tried to interfere with their possession, the petitioner filed O.S.No.618 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Kakinada, against the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallarevu and the Village Administrative Officer, Mallavaram. The grievance of the petitioner is that though its members are in possession of the said property, the respondents are contemplating to issue lease orders in respect of Survey Nos.231/C and 231/1. In the counter affidavit, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District, narrated the entire background of pending cases, reference to which is not necessary. He stated that the members of the petitioner-Society high-handedly trespassed into the Government land in the guise of order dated 17.05.2000 in W.P.No.8843 of 2000. He further stated that if the members of the petitioner are really eligible for grant of assignment, they can also make an application for assignment along with other weaker sections of the people before the assignment Committee.

He further stated that in view of the interim orders obtained by the petitioner, the respondents are unable to assign the land to the original beneficiaries. No reply affidavit is filed contraverting the averments contained in the counter affidavit. A careful perusal of the pleadings in the affidavit shows that the petitioner could not derive any legal right to claim assignment in favour of its members. By the mere fact that the members of the petitioner-Society have been in unauthorized occupation of the Government land, no right came to be vested in the petitioner to claim assignment. The land, admittedly, belongs to the Government and hence, it is for the Government to distribute the same in accordance with its policy decisions and executive instructions, if any. The members of the petitioner are not entitled to seek any relief filed before this Court in a Writ proceeding, which is essentially equitable in nature.

As pointed out by the Mandal Revenue Officer in his counter, if the members of the petitioner- Society are eligible for grant of assignment, they shall be free to apply to the respondents for grant of assignment along with the other eligible persons and the respondents shall have the liberty to distribute the land by following the rules/instructions in force. As the petitioner failed to establish any legally enforceable right for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 10th July 2008 RRB _______________________

(C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J)