THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21030 of 2005 30-09-2009 Between: S.Hussainamma wife of Late S.Chinna Veeraiah ...Petitioner Vs. The District Collector, Kadapa District and others ..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.21030 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring inaction on the part of the respondents in granting patta in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in Sy.No.872/2 to an extent of Ac.1.86 cents situated at Chintakommadinee Village and Mandal, Kadapa District as illegal and arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of patta in respect of the land in Sy.No.872/2 to an extent of Ac.1.86 cents situated at Chintakommadinee Village and Mandal, Kadapa district. It is the case of the petitioner that her father late Vempalli Bapa Saheb, being a landless poor person, occupied the land in an extent of Ac.1.86 cents situated in Sy.No.872/2 of Chintakommadinee Village and Mandal four decades ago and since then he has been cultivating the said land. Later, he filed an application on 23-11-2002 before the 2nd respondent for assigning the said land in favour of the petitioner since the petitioner has been living with him after demise of her husband along with children. However, the said application was not acted upon. Further, the case of the petitioner is that the total extent of land admeasuring Ac.7.54 cents in Sy.No.872/2 was classified as Agricultural Poramboke land in the year 1959, but it appears the said land was transferred to Agricultural Department, which in turn transferred to Animal Husbandry Department and therefore the petitioner was not allowed to cultivate the land in question. Under those circumstances, upon the application being made by the father of the petitioner, the MRO inquired into the matter through the Additional Revenue Inspector and found that the land in question was under the cultivation of the father of the petitioner, which was classified as Agricultural Poramboke land and recommended to withdraw the above land from the Agricultural Department for being allotment in the name of the petitioner subject to assignment Rules and further sought for consent of the Agricultural Department. However, the Agricultural Department expressed its inability to part with the said land though it is lying vacant. It is manifest that when once the land is allotted to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, since it is a Governmental Department, particularly Animal Husbandry Department which requires little more open area for the purpose of its operations, it cannot be forced to part with the land and more so that cannot be done under Article 226 of the Constitution by this Court. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the respondents 1 and 2 and on filing such representation, the respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the case of the petitioner for allotting alternative land for assignment in favour of the petitioner in case the land in Sy.No.872/2 of Chintakommadinee Village and Mandal, Kadapa district is not feasible for assignment and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the application from the petitioner. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 30th SEPTEMBER 2010 TSNR