HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10202 of 2010 30th April 2010 Between: P. Pandurangaiah … PETITIONER(S) and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department (Land Acquisition) Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.10202 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. At their request, the Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land assigned to the 5th respondent and to have been in possession of the land ever since 1991. He would contend that he is entitled to be paid exgratia as per G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 for the lands admeasuring Acs.2-42 cents in Sy.No.390/1 of Mallavaripalem Village, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District. Except for a bare averment, in the writ affidavit, that he had purchased the assigned lands, neither is a copy of the sale deed filed to show that the said land was purchased nor are any pahanis filed to show that the petitioner remains in possession of these assigned lands. On a query from this Court whether the 5th respondent was entitled to sell the lands, which were assigned to him by the Government, Sri P.Gangarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would express his inability to show any provision which empowers an assignee to sell lands, assigned in his favour by the Government, to another. The assignment rules prohibit transfer of assigned lands by way of sale to another. All that G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 provides for is that, if the assigned lands are resumed for a public purpose, the assignees are entitled for compensation. The petitioner is not an assignee in as much as no land was assigned to him by the Government and as such G.O.Ms.No.1307 dated 23.12.1993 has no application. The mere fact that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the third respondent - Land Acquisition Officer would not justify grant of the relief sought for in the Writ Petition nor would this Court be justified in directing the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation since the third respondent can only do so if the petitioner has any legal right for payment of compensation. The petitioner has not been able to establish any such right in the writ proceedings before this Court. I see no reason, therefore, to direct the third respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation. Viewed from any angle, the Writ Petition, as filed, is devoid of merits. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 30th April 2010 CVRK/asp