IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7893 of 2000 Between: D.Doraswami Naidu …….Petitioner and The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapally and another ………Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: MR. K.RAMA MOHAN MAHADEVA FOR MR. K.G.KRISHNAMOORTHY Counsel for the respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in dispossessing the petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.1.18 cents in Survey No.142/3B (142/4) of Peddapanjani Village and Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the proposals submitted by respondent No.2 on 16.07.1997. Heard Sri K.Rama Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that his family was in possession of the above mentioned land and in recognition of the same, assignment was granted in favour of his mother vide DKT.No.91/4/1400, dated 26.12.1990; that in pursuance of the grant of the said assignment, the petitioner developed the land by digging a bore well and planting coconut saplings during 1990-91; that the petitioner’s mother, who is the original assignee, died in the year 1996 and thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 to transfer the land in his name. The petitioner further averred that respondent No.1 in his proceedings, dated 20.02.1997 directed respondent No.2 to submit proposals for change of classification of the said land in Survey No.142/4 from cart track poramboke to AWD for assigning the same to the petitioner on market value and that respondent No.2 after ascertaining the market value from the Sub-Registrar office, submitted proposals on 16.07.1997 for change of classification. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the proposals were made as far back as 1997, respondent No.1 did not pass any order changing the classification and assigning the land to the petitioner on market value and respondent No.2 was trying to evict the petitioner. He, therefore, filed the present writ petition. The Sub-Collector, Madanapalle Division, Chittoor District, filed a counter-affidavit in which it is stated that the land in question is recorded as cart track poramboke and on receipt of the petitioner’s application, dated 26.07.1995, personal inspection was conducted by the predecessor of respondent No.1 and his enquiries revealed that the petitioner is not eligible for assignment at free of cost and, therefore, he directed respondent No.2 to send proposals for assignment of the land on payment of market value and that the latter accordingly, sent proposals on 16.07.1997 to sell the land on market value @ Rs.10,000/- per acre. It is further stated that it was noticed that the land is near the Mandal Headquarters and needed for public purpose and accordingly, the predecessor-in-office of the answering respondent rejected the proposals for assignment of the land to the petitioner on payment of market value vide his order, dated 06.06.1998. It is further stated that for the first time, the petitioner averred in his affidavit that the land in question was already given to his late mother and that the said assignment was made without conversion of the land as evident from the revenue records. It is further stated that separate action is contemplated for cancellation of the said assignment. The Sub-Collector also filed an additional counter-affidavit wherein he complained that taking advantage of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner raised mango garden and has been altering the nature of the land. Having carefully considered the pleadings and perused the record, I am of the view that the respondents have not made a proper and legal approach in dealing with the petitioner’s case. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner produced before me the original assignment order bearing DKT.No.91/4/1400, dated 26.12.1990, which was issued in the name of D.Kuppamma, wife of Venkatrama Naidu, who is admittedly the mother of the petitioner. Condition No.1 of the said order is to the effect that the assigned land is heritable, but not liable to be transferred to others. It is beyond one’s apprehension that when the status of the petitioner as the son of the original assignee is not disputed and the assignment granted in favour of his mother is not so far cancelled, the petitioner should have approached the respondents for alienation of the property on market value. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) placed before me a copy of the purported application of the petitioner wherein he made a request to assign the land on market value. A careful reading of the said application shows that at the designated place where a mark is made, the petitioner subscribed his signature, while the matter is in different handwriting. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Peddapanjani, attested the said application. From a careful examination of the said application, it is quite evident that the petitioner, who obviously seemed to be a semi-literate, was misguided to subscribe his signature on the purported application. In my considered view, the so-called request of the petitioner for grant of assignment/alienation on market value is wholly misconceived and unnecessary. So long as the assignment granted in favour of the mother of the petitioner is not cancelled, the petitioner is entitled as of right to enjoy the property without any interference of the respondents. If the assignment was made irregularly without conversion of cart track poramboke into AWD, it would have been open to the respondents to take appropriate action either for conversion or cancellation of the assignment. The fact remains that no such steps have been taken while proposals were sent for conversion to AWD on the so-called application of the petitioner for assignment of the land on market value. On the above analysis of the facts, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.18 cents in Survey No.142/3B (142/4) of Peddapanjani Village so long as the DKT patta granted in favour of the petitioner’s mother continues to subsist. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11th JULY, 2008. kvni