IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25119 of 2000 Between: T. Seenaiah … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Chittoor & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Surender Raj for Sri V. Jagapathi Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignments) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25119 of 2000 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.139/2 of Chuttuguntaramapuram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant DKT patta to him in respect of the said land. Heard Sri K. Surender Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and perused the record. In his aﬃdavit, the petitioner stated that his father by name Sri T. Dharmaiah purchased an extent of Ac.0.96 cents of land in Sy.No.139/2 of Chuttuguntaramapuram Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor district for a valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 15.09.1955, that since then the petitioner’s family is in possession of the said property, that he applied for grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds, but respondent No.2 informed him that the said land is Government land and hence he is not entitled to the grant of pattadar passbooks and that he later applied for grant of assignment. The petitioner, however, stated that pending his application for grant of DKT patta, he was granted an Eksal patta on 27.12.1992. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 14.12.2000 respondent No.2, at the instance of certain persons, who are inemically disposed to him, got mango saplings removed and has threatened to dispossess him. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District, it is stated that an extent of Ac.2.11 cents in Sy.No.139 is classiﬁed as Kalva Poramboke as per the village accounts, and that channel is passing from West to East connecting Kuntrapakam Tank of Kuntrapakam Village of Tirupati Rural Mandal and crossing Tirupati Pachikapalam main road near Ramachandrapuram Village. It is also stated that tank beds and water porambokes are prohibited from assignment and even if the petitioner’s father purchased the said property under a sale deed, the same is void ab initio. He denied the allegation of the petitioner that his family is in possession of the land for more than 40 years, but admitted that tank bed lands can be leased out for a temporary period and hence Eksal lease has been granted in favour of the petitioner by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer on 27.12.1992 and that since the said permission expired, the petitioner is not in possession of the same. It is further averred that since the petitioner owns Ac.2.76 cents of dry land, he is not eligible for assignment. Admittedly, respondent No.2 granted Eksal patta to the petitioner and even according to him, while there is prohibition for grant of assignment on a permanent basis in respect of the Kalva Poramboke, no such prohibition exists for granting permission to irrigate the property under Eksal lease. It is also admitted that such an Eksal lease was granted to the petitioner on 27.12.1992. The plea that the petitioner is not eligible for assignment in view of his possessing Ac.2.76 cents cannot be sustained because under BSO 15(3)(2)(ii) a person, who does not own more than Ac.5.00 of dry land is eligible for grant of assignment. Since even according to respondent No.2, the petitioner owns only about Ac.2.76 cents of dry land, it cannot be said that he is not eligible for assignment. Therefore, in the light of the claim of the petitioner which is supported by the copies of the registered documents that the petitioner’s father purchased the property in question under sale deed dated 15.09.1955, which date backs to more than 50 years, and the further fact that a lease was already granted to the petitioner earlier and the land is lying idle without being claimed by any one, interest of justice would be met if respondent No.2 considers the claim of the petitioner for temporary assignment to enable him to cultivate the property so long as it is not found required for any other public purpose. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting periodical leases for agricultural purpose only. Till such time as he considers the case of the petitioner, status quo as on today shall be maintained with respect to possession. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.32058 of 2000 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.08.2008 ES