THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 32635 of 2010 Dated: 1-2-2011 Between Bommaraju Peddolla Sathaiah …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others …Respondents Oral order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) This writ petition is misconceived and barred by delay and laches. The 1st respondent in LGOP No. 679 of 1994 seeks Certiorari against the order and decree dated 3-6-1996 of the learned Special Tribunal under the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982-cum- District Judge, Ranga Reddy. The 1st respondent-State filed the case before the Special Tribunal under Section 7(A) of the A.P. Land Grabbing Act, 1982 claiming title to an extent of Ac.2-13 guntas in Sy.No. 323/1 of Turkayamzal village of Hayathnagar Mandal alleging that the writ petitioner had grabbed the Government land. The writ petitioner, as the respondent therein, denied the allegations and claimed to have perfected his title over the petition schedule property by adverse possession for over 60 years. The petitioner is a person belonging to Washerman community. The learned Special Tribunal, on a cogent and careful consideration of the evidence on record, found that the property in question belongs to the Government and also against the writ petitioner in so far as the claim of adverse possession is concerned. The petitioner does not seriously canvass the correctness of the findings of the Special Tribunal with regard to the findings against him on the issue of adverse possession. What is however contended on behalf of the petitioner is that for similarly situated persons, the State Government had, subsequent to the judgment of the Special Tribunal in this case, granted assignment of land and that a similar treatment should be extended to him. This contention does not commend acceptance by this Court. It is not within the scope of this writ petition seeking Certiorari against the order of the Special Tribunal to consider whether the State should consider the writ petitioner’s representation or his case for grant of assignment of land, a matter within the rational discretion of the State. It is open to the petitioner to make an application to the 1st respondent seeking assignment of land in his favour. The writ petition is also filed nearly 5 years from the date of the judgment of the Special Tribunal, which is barred by laches and delay. For the aforesaid reasons, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 1st February, 2011 ________________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J GRR