IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO.1747 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/11/2008 in WP NO : 5972 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Sundarayya Vyavasaya Coolila Sankshema Sangam, Tamaram, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, rep by its President Chandragiri Apparao, S/o Venkata Swamy aged about 55 years 2 konnuru Nookaraju S/o Suryanarayana 3 Maki Reddy Lakshmi W/o Appala Naidu 4 Maki Reddy Subba Lakshmi W/o Buchiraju 5 Maki reddy Bhavani W/o Rambabu 6 Maki Reddy Lakshmi W/o Raa Rao 7 Gandi Sathyavathi W/o Venkata Ramana 8 Maki Reddy Narayanamma W/o China Konda, 9 Maki Reddy Ravi babu, S/o Ganga Raju 10 Rongala Sathibabu S/o Sannyababu 11 Rongala Sannibabu S/o Reddy, 12 Ruthala Bhagyalaxmi W/o Venkataramana All R/o Sundarayya Vyavasaya coolila Sankshema Sangam, Tamaram village, Makavapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 The District Collector Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Y.Srinu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Y.Srinu Babu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Lalam Suryanarayana Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Lalam Kondababu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 7 Yaka Ramanababu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 8 Yaka Rama Babu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 9 Lalam Kannababu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 10 Makireddy Rajababu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 11 Makireddy Appala Naidu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 12 Makireddy Mahalakshmi Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 13 Makireddy Sattibabu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 14 Chintala Rambabu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 15 Yaka Chinnaiah Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 16 Yaka Nooku Naidu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 17 Makireddy Benny Naidu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 18 Yaka Yerrinaidu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 19 Yaka Yerra Patrudu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 20 Killada Gangaraju Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 21 Yaka Rajulamma Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 22 Yaka Ganga Babu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 23 Makireddy Rajhulamma Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 24 Kodi Bhoolokamma Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 25 Makireddy Bennaiah Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 26 Kodi Rajababu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 27 Yaka Venku Naidu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 28 Kannuri Rajababu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 29 Yaka Chinna Ramulu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 30 Kannur Chinnathalli Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 31 Singampalli Raju Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 32 Yaka Appala Naidu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 33 Makireddy Simhachalam Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 34 Makireddy Narasiah Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 35 Makireddy Ganga Raju Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 36 Makireddy Ganga Raju Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 37 Makireddy Suryanarayana Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 38 Gedela Rajeswari Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 39 L.Padmavathi Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 40 Chitikala Kondamma Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 41 Makireddy Ramu Naidu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 42 P.Atchayamma Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 43 Makireddy Appanna Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 44 M.Rajababu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 45 Gedela Sridhar Naidu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 46 Makireddy Ganga Raju Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 47 Sepana Malleswara Rao Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 48 Adigarla Ganga Bhavani Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 49 Paila Rajababu Resident of Kothapalem H/o. Rachapalli Village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 50 The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 6th Floor, Parishrama Bhawan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Rep by its Managing Director, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.T.S.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1747 of 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma) Heard Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 49, and Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Private Limited (for brevity “the APIIC”). 2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the common order, dated 20-11-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5972 of 2008 (along with C.C.No.733 of 2008), dismissing the writ petition. 3. Appellants are petitioners and respondents are respondents in the writ petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the writ petition. 5. Petitioner No.1 is Sundarayya Vyavasaya Coolila Sankshema Sangham, while petitioner Nos.2 to 12 are its members. They claim that they are in possession of the Government land in an extent of more than Acs.100-00 in Survey Nos.70, 71, 72 and 73 of Tamaram village, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, being the landless poor persons and having surrendered their lands to the Government under the land acquisition proceedings and, as such, they are entitled for allotment of house site pattas of the above said lands in their favour. Therefore, they filed the writ petition seeking to grant pattas in respect of the above said lands. 6. Be that as it may, the implead petitioners, who were arrayed as respondent Nos.4 to 50 in the writ petition, approached this Court contending that they are the actual displaced persons from the lands owned by them and, therefore, they have a right for assignment of house site pattas. 7. From the above, it is obvious that both the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 to 50 are almost similarly situated and seeking allotment of house site pattas in the above said lands. 8. The learned single Judge, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, through the impugned common order, dated 20-11-2008, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the present writ appeal. 9. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said lands were taken away by the Government promising that compensation would be paid and that assignment of house site pattas also would be considered. 10. However, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue contends that the disputed lands have been originally assigned to some landless poor persons, but the said persons have sold away the assigned lands to others in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Therefore, the said lands were resumed by the Government on 20-11-2004 and eversince the said lands were in the custody of the Government, which are now being proposed for establishment of Industrial Park by APIIC. 11. At the outset, we are of the view that the law is well settled that there is no vested right for assignment of the land to such landless poor persons, but consideration of their case for assignment of land is the only right available to such landless poor persons. 12. However, it is not in dispute that the lands, which are in occupation of the petitioners, have been resumed for the purpose of establishment of Industrial Park by APIIC. 13. The learned single Judge, having elaborately considered various facts that were brought to the notice of the Court, through the impugned common order, dated 20-11-2008, dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: “However, since it is submitted by petitioner No.1 that some of its members are similarly placed as respondent Nos.4 to 50, whose lands also were acquired by the government for establishment of Industrial Park by APIIC, this order would not preclude respondent Nos.1 and 2 from after verifying the eligibility of such persons, and if found to be covered by the rehabilitation policy, considering their cases also for allotment of house sites in the remaining land, if any.” 14. Now, it is the apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the above observations in the impugned order, the cases of respondent Nos.4 to 50, who were got impleaded subsequently in the writ petition filed by the petitioners, alone would be considered for allotment of house site pattas. 15. But, we are unable to perceive such an intention from the order of the learned single Judge. Obviously, the intention of the learned single Judge would be to extend the benefit of considering the allotment of house site pattas to all the eligible persons, who were in possession of the disputed lands at the time of resumption or at the time of displacement, including the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.4 to 50, without any priority. 16. We are of the view that in view of the said observations and directions issued by the learned single Judge to the authorities, with a liberty to all eligible people, who are similarly situated, to approach the authorities seeking consideration of their cases individually for allotment of house site pattas, no other observations or clarification or orders need be passed in this appeal. The observations made by the learned single Judge in the impugned common order are sufficient to safeguard the interests of all the aggrieved persons. 17. For the foregoing, we feel it is appropriate to dispose of the writ appeal while confirming the observations and directions issued by the learned single Judge in the impugned common order, dated 20-11-2008. 18. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 22-12-2008. Msr THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT APPEAL No.1747 of 2008 22-12-2008 (Msr)