IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 397 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 02/03/2009 in WP NO : 2184 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Petta Chandra Rao S/o. Seshanna R/o. Thangetipeta, Tatapudi Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District. 2 The Sub Collector, Rajahmundry East Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Thangellapeta Harijana Sangam Rep. by its President, Rapaka Venkata Rao Tatapudi Village, Kapileswarapuam Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MRCH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) Aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2009 made in W.P. No.2184 of 2009 by a learned Single Judge of this court dismissing the writ petition, the writ petitioner preferred this Writ Appeal. The appellant herein filed the above writ petition feeling aggrieved by the issuance of certificate dated 9.6.2008 by third respondent handing over an extent of 1½ cents in Sy. No. 14/2A with the boundaries mentioned therein to the fourth respondent herein for construction of a community hall, inasmuch as he claims to have purchased an extent of 67 Sq. yards of land in Sy. No. 14/2A of Tatapudi Gram Panchayath from one Smt. Ganta Veeramma, through a sale deed dated 6.8.2008. It is his further case that the land purchased by him is not a part of Gramakantam or Government land and, therefore, there is no basis for the third respondent to issue the impugned certificate. The case of the respondents is that an extent of 0.82 cents in Sy. No. 14/2A is part of Gramakantam and, therefore, question of the appellant purchasing any part of it does not arise. It is not disputed that an extent of 1½ cents was allotted to the 4th respondent for construction of community hall. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the record clearly discloses that an extent of Ac.0.82 cents in Sy. No. 14/2A belongs to Government and it became a part of Gramakantam and unless the appellant proves that his vendor had independent title, the question of interfering with the impugned certificate does not arise. Aggrieved thereby the present writ Appeal is preferred. As can be seen from the impugned order, though the appellant placed reliance upon the sale deed dated 6.8.2008, he does not state sate as to the source of title. That apart, as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that since an extent of 0.82 cents in Sy. No. 14/2A belongs to Government, unless the appellant proves prima facie title to the said land, no relief can be granted to the appellant. That apart, it appears the appellant had already filed a suit before a court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _______________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar March 26, 2009 MAS