THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.8431 of 2010 Dated : 20.04.2010 Between : Dr.G.Girish Kumar & another … Petitioner a n d Government of A.P. & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.8431 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are sons of late Bharath Reddy. They filed the instant writ petition assailing the proceedings dated 25.01.2010 of the District Collector. By the said proceedings, the request of the petitioners for allotment of alternate land in lieu of land in survey No.972/AA of Kukatpally (Village), Bala Nagar (Mandal), was rejected. Brief fact of the matter is as follows. The father of the petitioners is allegedly a Freedom Fighter. He was given a grant in respect of land admeasuring Ac.10.00 cents in survey No.972/AA vide proceedings dated 21.11.1961. After death of Bharath Reddy, the petitioners allegedly succeeded to the property. They requested the third respondent to incorporate their names in the revenue records, in vain. They filed Writ Petition No.18422 of 2006. This Court disposed of the same on 11.09.2006 observing that the appropriate authority may pass orders on the application of the petitioner. The third respondent sent a report dated 31.03.2006 to the second respondent stating that the land claimed by the petitioners was allotted to various institutions. In the said report, the third respondent also mentioned that the original files pertaining to the papers filed by the petitioners are not available in the office. In view of the same, petitioners requested to allot alternate land. By impugned order, the second respondent rejected their request. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Though petitioners allege that a grant was given to their father by way of patta, the same is not enclosed to the writ petition. They annexed a typed copy of a document titled as “written permission to enter into the land”. It is a typed copy and it is not even certified. So much credence cannot be given to the same. It is well settled that a rough patta does not confer any right (See Elumalai Chetty v Rathnavelu Chetty[1]). A perusal of the report of the Tahasildar to the District Collector vide his letter dated 31.03.2006 would show that no such files are available in the office of the Tahasildar. Therefore, the request of the petitioners was rightly rejected. The petitioners have not demonstrated any enforceable right for issuing a Mandamus as prayed for. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. __________ V.V.S.RAO, J April 20, 2010 sur [1] (1971)II AN.W.R. 193