THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 3300 OF 2003 Dated 21st December, 2009 Between: G. Veeranjaneyulu ………Petitioner And The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole and three others ………..Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : None appeared Counsel for the Respondents : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in granting temporary permission in favour of respondent No.4 to cultivate an extent of 34 cents of land in Survey No. 55 of Pandillapalli Village, Vetapalem Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Though served, respondent No.4 is not represented by any counsel. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and perused the record. The petitioner is the Secretary of Pandillapalli Gram Panchayat, Vetapalem Mandal. He filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in granting temporary permission to respondent No.4 to cultivate the extent of 34 cents of land classified as donka poramboke. After the said permission was granted by respondent No.3, the Gram Panchayat passed resolution No.119, dated 30-11-2002 requesting respondent No.3 to cancel the permission granted by him. The petitioner also moved a separate representation in this regard. As no action was taken thereon, he filed the present writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri K. Nageswararao, Mandal Revenue Officer, Vetapalem, the fact that temporary permission was given to respondent No.4 has been admitted. Further, the Gram Panchayat passing the resolution and the petitioner making a representation for cancellation of the temporary permission granted in favour of respondent No.4 have also been admitted in the counter. The impugned action was sought to be justified by the official respondents on two grounds viz., that the land classified as donka poramboke is vested in the revenue and not in the Gram Panchayat and that the permission granted was only temporary and that even after excluding 34 cents, there still remains Acs.2.00 of land, which can be used by the villagers. Along with the counter affidavit, respondent No.3 filed a copy of letter addressed by him to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, respondent No.2 herein, wherein he stated that in view of the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and the request made by the petitioner for cancellation of the temporary permission, which was granted only for one year i.e., for fasli 1412 (the year 2002), the Revenue Divisional Officer may take an appropriate decision on the above said request. Curiously, respondent No.3 has sworn to the counter affidavit on 23-10-2003 by which time one year period was almost coming to an end. He neither indicated in the counter affidavit that the temporary permission was valid only for one year nor he mentioned the future course of action proposed to be taken by him on the expiry of one year period. In all fairness, respondent No.3 should have mentioned the limited period for which the permission has been granted instead of vaguely stating that the permission was only temporary and he should have also come out with the future course of action in the light of the objections raised by the Gram Panchayat and also the petitioner. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader is unable to report to the Court as to whether the temporary permission which would have expired in the year 2003 itself has been extended or not. In the aforementioned circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: If the temporary permission granted in favour of respondent No.4 has been extended further and such permission is still in force, respondent No.1 shall examine the feasibility of permitting cultivation over donka poramboke instead of preserving the same for community purposes and take an appropriate decision thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If temporary permission has not been extended, steps shall be taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to preserve the land as donka poramboke. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP No. 4336 of 2003, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 21st December, 2009 ks