IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 3410 of 2008 Between: 1 G. Ramakrishna S/o Late G. Narayanappa 2 G. Veeranarayana S/o Late G. Narayanappa All R/o Errampalli Village, .K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Land Revenue Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Anantapur District. 3 Revenue Divisional officer, Dharmavaram Anantapur District. 4 The Tahsildar, Chennekothapali, Mandal, Anantapur District. 5 Jangam Narayana S/o Late J. Thipanna R/o Errampalli Village, C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur District 6 Narayana Swamy S/o late Jangam Ankanna R/o Errampalli Village, C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur District 7 J. Eswarappa S/o Late Jangam Ankanna R/o Errampalli Village, C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur District,. 8 J. Narayanappa S/o Late jangam Ankanna R/o Errampalli Village, C.K. Palli Mandal, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari call for the records made in Proceedings No. BCW-1/252/92 dated 24-11-2007 on the file of the 1st respondent and set a side the same as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents consider the case of the petitioners and assign the land admeasuring Ac. 5.23 in S. No.570-1 of Errampalli Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal Anantapur District to the petitionrs and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR,KUNCHEAMMAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.3410 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners’ father – Narayanappa was assigned an extent of Acs.5.23 cents of agricultural land in survey Nos.570 of Errampalli Village, Chennekothapalli Mandal, Anantapur District, by proceedings dated 05.01.1975. Consistent with the chronic maladministration in the lower echelons of revenue administration, the Tahsildar, Chennekothapalli, assigned the same land to the father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 by proceedings dated 13.12.1978 without cancelling the earlier assignment dated 05.01.1975 in favour of Narayanappa. Narayanappa approached the third respondent – the Revenue Divisional Officer(RDO), Dharmavaram, aggrieved by the 1978 assignment in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 to 8. By the order dated 06.05.1986, the RDO found the assignment in 1978, during the pendency of the 1975 assignment, to be invalid and set aside the later assignment. Aggrieved thereby, the father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 preferred an appeal to the second respondent. The second respondent by the order dated 31.03.2007 allowed the appeal and invalidated the earlier assignment dated 05.01.1975 in favour of Narayanappa and upheld the assignment dated 31.12.1978 in favour of the father of respondent Nos.5 to 8. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners preferred a revision to the first respondent, who by impugned order dated 24.11.2007 rejected the revision. It requires to be noticed that the appellate authority – the second respondent and the revisional authority – the first respondent concurrently recorded the finding that the petitioners’ father was a Gateman working with the Railways and drawing a salary of Rs.1,666/- per month and the father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 was a landless poor person and therefore preeminently entitled to assignment of the land in question. It requires to be noticed that the revisional authority, on a plea on behalf of the petitioners herein, also observed that if the petitioners (appellant Nos.2 and 3 before the first respondent) establish that they are landless poor persons, their cases may be considered for assignment as per the Rules and that these individuals may represent before the Collector for assignment. This Court discerns no infirmity either in the application of law or exercise of executive discretion in the order impugned, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The discretion to assign government land is a discretion coupled with a duty to rationally exercise the discretion, since it is a public power. Though the father of the petitioners Narayanappa could not be considered a rich person, merely on account of being Gateman employed with the Railways, that is not the only factor which exclusively entitled him for assignment of government land. Assignment of government land ought to be on the basis that land should be made available to the most needy among the populace. As a landless poor, the father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 was considered more eligible than the father of the petitioners for assignment of the land. This is the concurrent finding of respondent Nos.1 and 2, a finding which does not commend interference by this Court. There are no merits. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to make a representation to the Collector for assignment in their favour, as observed by the first respondent. No costs. ____________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 06th July, 2009 GHN