HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITON NO. 6947 OF 2005 Thursday, the Twenty Fourth day of February, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Yenamareddy Manireddy Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam and another Respondents ORDER: When the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.2.2011, none appeared and, therefore, it was posted under the caption for dismissal today. Today when the writ petition is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks adjournment and is not prepared to argue, without assigning any reason. However, I have gone through the pleadings. The case of the petitioner is that he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.1.86 cents in Sy. No. 185 in Kakarapally village and Ac.0.99 cents in Sy. No. 112 of Patipally village and he raised cashew nut and eucalyptus in the said land and both the lands are contiguous and, as such, applied for assignment of the said lands. The said application for the grant of assignment was not considered and on the other hand, the Mandal Revenue Officer Munagapalle Mandal, issued endorsement dated 29.12.2004 stating that it is not possible to assign the said land as the said land is situated within the ambit of Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. It is further stated that the second respondent issued notice notifying for the assignment of land in the said Sy. No. inviting public objections by A-1 notice dated 1.2.2005 in faovur of the third parties contrary to their earlier stand vide endorsement dated 29.12.2004. Thus the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may forcibly dispossess him and accordingly writ of mandamus is sought to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his application for assignment of the said land. Unfortunately no counter is forthcoming from the respondents. However, having gone through the pleadings, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot have any vested right or fundamental right for assignment of the government land. Whenever any government land is available to be assigned and if the same is not within the prohibited area of any Urban Development Authority, it is for the Government to consider the claims of all the eligible applicants therefor taking into considering their economical and social backwardness and among the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes. If the Assignment Rules contemplate extension of any privilege or preference in favour of the persons who are in occupation of the lands, ofcourse, it is for the authorities to consider the same. But as the petitioner has got no vested right, it cannot be said that the respondents are bound to consider the assignment of the said land in his favour. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah February 24, 2011 MAS