IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2939 of 2006 Between: Utharilli Bangarayya S/o. Late Narayudu Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home(General-C) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the orders of the second respondent in Rc No. 5938/2005/E2 dt. 5-12-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of fair play and justice and issue consequential direction to the second respondent to implement the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No. 27809/Genl.C/2004-2 Home (Genl.C) Department dt. 8-12-2004 forthwith and pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of the 2nd respondent - District Collector, Visakhapatnam in not implementing the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Memo No.27809/Genl.C/2004-2 Home (General-C) Department dated 8.12.2004 and also the orders dated 5.12.2005 of the District Collector according permission to the 4th respondent to auction the lands in S.No.351 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam District. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home and the learned standing counsel for the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an ex-servicemen and retired from service in the year 1962. Thereafter, he started cultivating an extent of Ac.5.00 of Government poramboke land situated in Sy.No.351/1 and 351/2 of Madhurawada Village with the permission of the revenue authorities. In the said land, he raised a cashew nut garden and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land. Therefore, he made a representation to the government for assignment of the said land in his favour, which was recommended by the President of the Visakhapatnam District Ex-servicemen League and National Ex-Servicemen Coordination Committee. The said representation was considered by the government and vide memo dated 8.12.2004, the government directed the District Collector, Visakhapatnam to assign the said land in his favour. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the government passed orders in his favour, the District Collector, the 2nd respondent herein is not implementing the said orders by granting assignment in his favour and on the other hand, accorded permission to the 4th respondent – Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority(VUDA) to put the said land also to auction. On 16.02.2006, this Court while admitting the writ petition granted stay of the auction of the subject matter of land. Thereafter, the respondents 2 and 3 and respondent No.4 filed separate counters. In the counter filed by respondents 2 and 3 it is stated that on receipt of the representation of the petitioner, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam (Rural) verified the land in the year 2004 and found that the petitioner is in encroachment of the said land and that there are only 8 scattered cashew trees on the land. It is further averred that residential houses and colonies have come up in the lands in Madhurawada Village and they are very potential. The lands in and around Visakhapatnam are prime and very valuable and they are required for the future needs of the public. The Government in G.O.Rt.No.1606 MA dated 1.12.2005 issued orders to all the Collectors to identify the government lands falling within Urban Development Authority limits and to hand over the lands to the concerned Urban Development Authority, who in turn would develop the same and realize the land cost and development cost through auctions and utilize the amounts derived for implementation of master plan proposals as envisaged in the master plan. Since VUDA has made a request that the government land in Sy.No.351 is required for development purpose, the same was handed over to VUDA vide proceedings dated 5.12.2005. It is further stated that the petitioner is only an encroacher and no ‘D’ form patta has been issued and that the lands are vested with the government. Though the government has issued memo dated 8.12.2004 directing the District Collector to assign the said land in favour of the petitioner, the said orders could not be implemented and the land could not be handed over to the petitioner in view of the Board Standing Orders 15(4)(ii)(a) as per which the lands in the proximity and in the town are prohibited from assignment. The land which the petitioner is claiming is classified as Government land and Madhurawada Village is very adjacent to Visakhapatnam and now it is included in the greater Visakha and, therefore, the same cannot be assigned in favour of the writ petitioner. In the counter filed by the 4th respondent VUDA also it is stated that the subject matter of land is in its possession since 7.1.2005 and that the lands in urbanized mandals are prohibited from assignment and as such the petitioner was not granted any assignment and there is no possibility of assigning the land to him in future. Petitioner also filed a reply affidavit denying the counter averments and further stated that he is still in possession of the subject matter of land. Be that as it may, when the matter came up for arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the representation made by the petitioner to the District Collector seeking assignment of the said land is still pending and the same may be directed to be disposed of. The file produced by the government shows that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, the Collector has called for a report from the Tahsidlar and he submitted a report and the Collector has not taken any decision on the representation as yet. In the circumstances, if the representation of the petitioner is still pending consideration, the 2nd respondent District Collector is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.18.7.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Home(General-C) Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam. 5 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P Hyd. 6 2 CCs to Govt.Pleader for Home, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 7 2CD copies