IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26030 of 2001 Between: C. Ramalinga Reddy S/o China Konda Reddy Muchchumarri Village, Kondapuram Mandal, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapuram Mandal, Cuddapah District. 2 The District Collector, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Kondapuram Mandal, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents:AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in implementing order, dated 08.10.2001 passed by respondent No.3 as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to allot 70 sq.yards of land in Survey No.17/3 to the petitioner on market value. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) and perused the record. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that he is the owner of the land of an extent of 107 links North-South and 320 feet East-West in Survey No.129 of Obannapeta Village, Kondapuram Mandal having purchased the same from V.Nagaraju on 19.03.2001; that the said Nagaraju submitted a representation to the respondents against grant of pattas for house-sites in Survey No.17/3 in favour of three individuals on the ground that the said land was only the means of ingress and egress to his land and that his vendor also requested for allotment of 70 sq.yards of land on market value. It is further averred that basing on the said representation, respondent No.1 conducted a detailed enquiry and cancelled the D-Form pattas issued in favour of the three individuals and directed respondent No.3 to take possession of Ac.0.05 cents of land in Survey No.17/3 by his order, dated 08.10.2001. He also averred that the request of the petitioner for allotment of 70 sq.yards of land is under consideration. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order of resumption passed by respondent No.1, respondent No.3 has failed to implement the same. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that on the representation made by Sri V.Nagaraju on 21.06.1999 and also in view of Dharna conducted by the people belonging to Scheduled Caste organizations, D-Form pattas granted in favour of the three individuals were cancelled by respondent No.1 on 08.10.2001 and possession of the land was taken over on 17.04.2002. It is further stated that on the representation of the petitioner’s vendor, the Joint Collector inspected the land on 08.04.2002 and found that the petitioner encroached a small portion of the Government land by constructing steps and sunshade for his commercial building and that the entire disputed land located in the commercial area was encroached by bunks and sheds wherein petty businesses were being run for the last five years and, therefore, the Joint Collector decided to keep the land in Prohibitory Order Book and to avoid encroachments, it was decided to handover the entire land to S.C. Corporation to construct small shops and allot the same to the encroachers on rental basis. The respondents denied the right of the petitioner to get the land assigned to him on market value. It is also stated that the petitioner filed O.S.No.79 of 2002 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu for permanent injunction. In my considered view, the petitioner has no legally enforceable right to insist on the respondents for alienation of the land on market value to him. Admittedly, he encroached into the Government land. Unless he is able to establish easement of necessity, he has no right to demand the respondents to alienate the land in his favour. The petitioner can only avail the common law remedy of a civil suit before the competent Civil Court to establish his right of easement, if any. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd MARCH, 2009. kvni