IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :5802 of 2006 Between: P.Kesavulu Naidu ..... PETITIONERs AND The District Collector, Chittoor, And three others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.5802 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not assigning the agricultural land in Sy.No.228/1, an extent of Ac.4.16 cents of Katikapalli village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District, which is treated as Government poramboke land, though the petitioner comes under Ex-service man category as per G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 30.4.1963 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to assign the land in favour of the petitioner under the relevant rules, and to pass such other orders. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an Ex-service man having served in the Army from 20.9.1983 to 1.10.2000. The petitioner made a representation while serving as a jawan for assignment of land in Sy.No.237 of Katikapalli village, S.R.Puram Mandal, Chittoor Distrisct. But the said application was refused by the Mandal Revenue Officer, S.R.Puram Mandal vide proceedings in ROC No.A/675/1988, dated 31.8.1989 and the said application was made while the petitioner was in service as jawan. Thereafter the petitioner after his retirement in the capacity of an Ex-service man made a representation requesting the respondents for grant of assignment of land. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The Government filed a counter, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has not got any rights over the disputed land. The land is not in his possession and that the land is highly objectionable poramboke land for grant of assignment, as per existing Government orders, and to that effect endorsement was given earlier. Thereafter he requested for assignment of land in S.No.228/1 an extent of Ac.4.16 cents. He has got DKT patta in an extent of Ac.2.88 cents of dry land in S.Nos.216/1, 229/2 and 230/1 in the adjacent village of Thippinaidupalle village of Vedurukuppam Mandal under Ex-Servicemen quota and he has also got a share in the ancestral property to an extent of Ac.1.34 cents in S.R.Puram Mandal. Inspite of the assignment, he again requested for grant of assignment of land in S.No.228/1 for an extent of Ac.4.16 of Katikapalle village. It is also stated that one S.Govardana Naidu and 20 Schedule Tribe families of Pilligundlapalle have submitted applications stating that the disputed land in S.No.228/1 an extent of Ac.4.16 cents is in their possession and enjoyment since long time and requested for grant of assignment of land in their favour. Nobody is entitled for assignment of the said land as the same is grazing land as per the revenue records as on date. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner is not deserved for grant of any relief. 5. The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman. He made an application for assignment of land and since no assignment is made, he filed a writ petition. The Government has filed a statement stating that the petitioner was also having DKT patta in an extent of Ac.2.88 cents of dry land in S.Nos.216/1, 229/2 and 230/1 in the adjacent village of Thippinaidupalle of Vedurukuppam Mandal under Ex-Servicemen quota. He has also got share in the ancestral property to an extent of Ac.1.34 cents in S.R.Puram Mandal. It is stated that S.Govardana Naidu and 20 Scheduled Tribe families of Pilligundlapalle have submitted their applications stating that the disputed land is in their possession and enjoyment since a long time and requested for assignment of the said land in their favour. The said land cannot be assigned in anybody’s favour as it is a grazing land, therefore, the petitioner has not made out any case to grant any relief in his favour. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 24th September, 2009 PNV