IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 7879 of 2004 Between: Smt.Ommi Satyanavathi, W/o.Late appa Rao, R/o.D.No.6-16-6, Kothapet, Vijayawada ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The M.R.O.,vijayawada Urban, Mandal, Vijayawada. 2 The Sub Collector, Vijayawada. 3 The Dist.Collector, Krishna, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam. 4 The Secretary,Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P.Secretriat, Hyderabad. .....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 or order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to consider the Representation of the petiitioner dated 21/03/2003 and also to pass appropriate orders as permissable under law and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.AMBADIPUDI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents. The writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 21-03-2003 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. The petitioner is the widow of one Ommi Appa Rao, a landless poor person, who was assigned an extent of 160 square yards of house site in NTS No. 940, Ward No.4, Block No.1, Kummara Kunta in Vijayawada town in the proceedings of the Tahasildar, Vijayawada dated 14-11-1977. The petitioner’s husband, the assignee, died in 1993 leaving behind the petitioner herein, six daughters, three of whom were married during the life time of Appa Rao and a son. The other three daughters are unmarried and the son is not well qualified and is in a petty employment. As the petitioner was unable to perform the marriage of her daughters due to financial difficulties, she applied on 17-02-2003 to the third respondent through the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for permission to sell the assigned property and for utilizing the proceeds for performing the marriage of her daughters. On the petitioner’s application, the first respondent on 01-08-2003 directed the Mandal Surveyor to verify and confirm the genuineness of the petitioner’s request. The Mandal Surveyor submitted a report, according to the petitioner, certifying the genuineness of the cause. Thereupon, the first respondent on 27-12-2003 recommended to the second respondent for favourable consideration of the petitioner’s application. The petitioner sates that she approached the second and third respondents several times, but no action was taken on her representation. Hence the writ petition. The first respondent has filed a counter stating that the conditional assignment was granted in favour of Appa Rao for 160 square yards of house site on payment of market value of Rs.4,325-00. As Appa Rao had failed to pay the stipulated amount, the assignment in favour of Appa Rao is liable for cancellation. The petitioner’s claim that the entire amount for the plot had been paid is incorrect. The first respondent however states that if the petitioner is ready to pay the balance amount, even now, the same may be accepted. The petitioner has to pay the balance amount and seek regularization from the competent authority for validating the grant. With regard to the petitioner’s grievance that her representation has not been considered, the first respondent states that the second respondent had rejected the petitioner’s application by an order dated 01-06-2004 which was served on the petitioner through substituted service, as she did not receive the endorsement. With regard to the petitioner’s request for alienation the first respondent states that assignment of house sites is hereditable but not alienable. The intention in assignment is to enable the assignee to possess and enjoy the property but not to permit alienation of the property. In view of the averments above as set out in the counter affidavit dated 14-10-2004 to which the petitioner has not filed any subsequent pleadings contesting the averments, and since the second respondent has already passed an order rejecting the petitioner’s request, the grievance urged in the writ petition does not subsist. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 21-04-2008 Pvks/*