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 : 1492 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09/03/2007 in WP NO : 4443 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt.Pelluru Ramanamma, w/o Rosaiah, r/o Vigneswarapuram Colony, Podalakur Village & Mandal, Nellore District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Nellore District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SMT.C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE AND WRIT APPEAL NO : 1612 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/11/2006 in WP NO : 22256 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Smt. Pelluru Ramanama W/o Rosaiah R/o Vigneswarapuram Colony, Podalakur Village & Mandal, Nellore District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its District Collector, Nellore District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SMT.C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: 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 Nos.1492 and 1612 of 2008 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard both sides. 2. As the appellant and the issue involved in both the writ appeals are one and the same, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Writ Appeal No.1492 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 09.03.2007, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition Writ Petition No.4443 of 2007, while Writ Appeal No.1612 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 06.11.2006, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition Writ Petition No.22256 of 2006, in limine. 4. Appellant is the writ petitioner and respondents are the respondents in the said writ petition. 5. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the said writ petitions. 6. The case of the writ petitioner is that she has been in possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Ac.2-30 cents situate in Sy.No.18/1-2 of Ayyagaripalem Village, for quite some time. A request made by her for assignment of the said land in her favour was rejected by the first respondent-District Collector by an endorsement, dated 13.10.2006, on the grounds viz., that she is not a resident of Ayyagaripalem village; that her family possesses a ration card in another village by name Podalakur; that her family has ownership over an extent of Ac.5-31 cents of dry land and Ac.0.16 cents of wet land in Ayyagaripalem Village and that finally she was not in occupation of the land in question for the last five years. Challenging the same, she preferred a revision by way of representation before the fourth respondent-the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Hyderabad, who, in turn, rejected the same by order, dated 09.01.2007. Aggrieved by the same, she filed Writ Petition No.4443 of 2007. Earlier to filing of the said writ petition, she also filed Writ Petition No.22256 of 2006 challenging the proceedings of the third respondent, dated 28.01.2006, whereby the land in question was resumed to the Government for distribution of the same to the eligible S.C.beneficiaries of Thoderu Village. 7. In W.P.No.22256 of 2006, the learned single Judge, after hearing both the parties and after perusing the material on record, having found that the petitioner was not in possession of the land in question, held that the respondents, after due enquiry into the claim of the writ petitioner, rightly rejected her claim for assignment, giving cogent and valid reasons and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. 8. Later, Writ Petition No.4443 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that the writ petitioner seeks to reagitate the matter, which was earlier decided in Writ Petition No.22256 of 2006. 9. In the impugned order, the learned single Judge also recorded that the District Collector gave valid reasons, while rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for assignment of the said land. The said reasoning was extracted by the learned single Judge in the impugned order, hence, the same is not being re-extracted in this judgment. 10. It is obvious from a perusal of the relevant material on record that after due enquiry into the matter, the District Collector had applied his mind and rejected the request of the writ petitioner, for assignment of the land in question, in her favour, giving valid reasons, which was confirmed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.22256 of 2006, by order, dated 06.11.2006. Subsequently, Writ Petition No.4443 of 2007, which was filed virtually seeking the very same relief as in Writ Petition No.22256 of 2006, was also dismissed. The action of the writ petitioner in filing Writ Petition No.4443 of 2007, without challenging the earlier order passed in Writ Petition No.22256 of 2006, which was filed, virtually, for the very same relief, would attract the principles of res judicata. The reasoning assigned by the learned single Judge, in this regard, is unexceptionable and consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders, passed by the learned single Judge. 11. For the foregoing, both the writ appeals fail and re liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, both the writ appeals are dismissed, at the stage of admission. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH 22nd December 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Collector, Nellore District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, Nellore District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Podalakuru Mandal, Nellore District. 4 2 CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2CD copies