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 SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9769 of 2001 Between: 1 D.Raja Ratnam S/o.Late Sunder Rao R/o.Dabbakupalli Village Vatsavai Mandal Krishna District. 2 D.Ravi S/o.Late Sunder Rao R/o.Dabbakupalli Village Vatsavai Mandal Krishna District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Collector Krishna at Machilipatnam. 2 The Joint Collector Krishna at Machilipatnam 3 The Sub Collector Vijayawada Division Vijayawada Krishna Dist. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Vatsavi Mandal Krishna District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in granting patta to the petitioners to the extent of Ac.1.02 cents in Survey No.21 of Dabbakupalli Village, Vatsavai Mandal, Krishna District as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioners averred in their affidavit that the above mentioned extent of land is in the occupation of their family for generations right from the year 1911; that huge amounts were spent to convert vagu poramboke into a cultivable land and that crops are being raised thereon. It is further averred that the Tahsildar of Jaggaiahpet issued notices under the provisions of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in the years 1938, 1939 and 1940 and that no action was taken to evict the grandfather of the petitioners as he was found to be a landless poor person. It is further averred that during the lifetime of the petitioners’ father, the said land, which was dry, became wet land and included under the ayacut of Nagarjuna Sagar project and that after the death of their father, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The grievance of the petitioners is that though during the lifetime of their father, he made representation dated 29-02-1992 to respondent No.1 for grant of patta, no action was taken in that regard and that subsequently also their father made a representation in the year 1998. By endorsement dated 27-03-2001, respondent No.4 informed the petitioners’ father that as the land in his occupation was classified as a Government vagu poramboke, no patta could be granted. This endorsement is questioned in this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, he, inter alia, admitted the possession of the petitioners’ father to the extent of Ac.0.95 cents In R.S.No.21. It is, however, stated that as the land in the occupation of the petitioners is classified as ‘vagu poramboke’, in the revenue record, its assignment is prohibited. On this premise, the respondents have justified the impugned endorsement. I have given my earnest consideration to the issue involved in this writ petition, namely; whether the respondents are justified in denying patta to the petitioners in respect of the land in their occupation in R.S.No.21. It is no doubt true that vagu poramboke is prohibited from being assigned for the purposes of cultivation. But in this case the fact that the family of the petitioners from the time of their grandfather had been in possession of this land, at least from the year 1911, is not disputed by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. The respondents also admitted that the land is converted into agricultural land and being cultivated all these years. According to both the parties, efforts were made on several earlier occasions to evict the grandfather and father of the petitioners from the land in question, but the eviction has not taken place. The purpose of prohibiting vagu poramboke from being assigned is to preserve water bodies. By the conversion of the vagu poramboke into agricultural land, nearly a century ago, the very purpose of reserving the land as vagu poramboke was not achieved. If the respondents were keen to protect the vagu poramboke, there was no reason for them to allow the family of the petitioners being not only in possession of the property but also to cultivate the same for nearly a century. It is common knowledge that classification of the lands is changed from time to time depending upon the ground realities. In the admitted fact situation prevailing in the present case, I see no justification, whatsoever, for the respondents to continue the classification of vagu poramboke in the revenue record while the ground realities are totally different. As the land has been cultivated for about a century, the respondents ought to have taken a realistic view of the matter and facilitated grant of patta to the petitioners by making necessary changes in the classification of land by converting vagu poramboke into a cultivable land. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement is set aside. The respondents are directed to initiate steps to convert the vagu poramboke into cultivable land and consider the request of the petitioners for assignment subject to such terms and conditions as the respondents deem fit. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd March, 2009 vrn