HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.310 of 2008 Date : 28.06.2011 Between : K. Nagaraju. …..Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Anantapur (Rural) Mandal & another. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.310 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed, seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No.EI/7050/2007, dated 03.11.2007, refusing to issue no-objection certificate for alienation of land admeasuring Ac.1.06 cents in Sy.No.194, Ac.4.82 cents in Sy.No.132-2 and Ac.3.28 cents in Sy.No.205-1 of A.Narayanapuram village in Anantapur Mandal and District, as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the respondents to issue no-objection certificate for alienation of the aforesaid lands. The mother of the petitioner, by name, Smt.G.Visalakshmamma was an ex-service woman. The lands to an extent of Ac.4.82 cents in Sy.No.132-2, Ac.1.06 cents in Sy.No.194 and Ac.3.28 cents in Sy.No.205-1 of A.Narayanapuram village of Anantapur Mandal and District, were assigned in her favour vide proceedings, dated 11.12.1951, issued in D.A.R. Dis.No.637/61. She made a representation for grant of no-objection certificate from the Collector for alienation of the aforesaid lands and to transfer the said lands to third parties by executing registered sale deeds. Based on the claim of the petitioner’s mother, initially, an inquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, who, vide proceedings in RC.No.(b) 1033/2007, dated 07.09.2007, recommended to the Collector through the Revenue Divisional Officer, for issuance of no-objection certificate. Subsequently, it appears, another report was sent by the Tahsildar on 25.10.2007, stating that during the survey of “Intinti Indiramma Phase-II” program, it has come to the light that the aforesaid lands are in the possession of third parties, and a portion of the lands was also covered by National Highway and also a High Level Canal is passing through the said lands. Based on such recommendations of the Tahsildar, the Collector has rejected the request of the petitioner. In this writ petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri P.Veera Reddy, that when the patta certificate granted to the Late mother of the petitioner is in force, there is no reason for passing the impugned order, refusing to grant no-objection certificate. From a perusal of the impugned order and also the counter affidavit, it is evident that though initially the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer have recommended for issuance of no-objection certificate to the applicant, who is the mother of the petitioner, when physical verification was made over the land in question, it has come to the light that in Sy.No.194, there are huts existing in an extent of Ac.0.33 cents for the last 12 years prior to the date of inspection and an extent of Ac.0.73 cents in the said survey number is covered by HLC canal. Even with regard to Sy.No.205/1A, it is stated that substantial portion of land in the said survey number i.e. an extent of Ac.1.95 cents is also covered by HLC canal. As per the report, National Highway No.7 is also passing through Sy.No.205/1A and an extent of Ac.0.90 cents was covered by huts, which colony is named as ‘Royal Nagar’. Even with regard to Sy.No.132, it was found that long back, the land was alienated to one Sri B.V.Kondappa, who has alienated the same in favour of third parties in 1997 itself. While it is true that patta granted to the mother of the petitioner did not contain any condition prohibiting alienation, and the assignment made is in force, but when the land is in the possession of third parties, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the District Collector, refusing to grant no-objection for alienation. In respect of the lands, which are occupied by the third parties, it is always open for the petitioner to take steps for eviction of such third parties and make an application for grant of no-objection certificate, but as of now, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the District Collector, rejecting the claim of petitioner for grant of no-objection certificate on the application filed by the Late mother of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, while upholding the impugned order, dated 03.11.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings D.Dis.No.EI/7050/2007, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, keeping it open to the petitioner to take steps for eviction of encroachers on the lands assigned to his Late mother, and if ultimately, he gets back possession from the third parties, liberty is also given to the petitioner to file a fresh application before the District Collector for grant of no- objection certificate to the extent of the land which comes into his possession, for alienation to third parties. It is also made clear that with regard to the portions of land, which is used for HLC canal and National Highway, no direction can be given for grant of no-objection certificate. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th June 2011 ajr