IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16352 of 2005 Between: Gunimeda Uma Maheshwar Rao, S/o. Sri Ramulu, Taluq, High School, Tenali, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Bulidings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali Division, Tenali, Guntur District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. 5 The Municipal Commissioner, Tenali Municipality, Tenali, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. K.K.KISHORE FOR MR.M.BHARAT SHAH The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allot house site pattas to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons in Survey Nos.10, 11/2B, 13 and 14 of Chinnaravuru Village, Tenali Municipality, Guntur District by declaring that the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are entitled for house site pattas in the land comprised in the said survey numbers. The petitioner claims to be a landless poor agricultural labourer and resident of Tenali Town. He averred that 65 persons made applications for allotment of house sites in Survey Nos.10, 11/2B, 13 and 14 over an extent of land admeasuring Acs.15.00; that the Socio- Economic Survey was conducted in the year 1994; that the petitioner and others made representations on 18.07.1996 and 18.12.1998 and that when no action was taken by the respondents, late P.Sivaiah and another person, by name, N.Venkata Ratnam filed Writ Petition No.12961 of 1999 in this Court. He further averred that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 28.07.1999 by giving a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioners therein in the light of the Socio-Economic Survey conducted in the year 1994 for grant of house sites in respect of the land comprised in the said survey numbers; that out of the said 65 persons, only 10 persons were allotted the house sites and that the other 55 persons are still waiting for allotment of house sites. The petitioner further averred that the land admeasuring Acs.15.00 was converted into 600 plots consisting of 72 sq.yards each; that out of the said plots, ten plots were allotted to some of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.12961 of 1999; that there still remained land of an extent of Acs.3.90 cents with the respondents; that when a representation was made to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tenali, he replied in his proceedings, dated 25.09.1999 stating that out of 465 plots, only 165 plots were allotted and that the case of the petitioner and others will be considered when the land is acquired in future. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the land admeasuring Acs.3.90 cents is still available for distribution, the petitioner’s case is not considered. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District, respondent No.4, filed a detailed counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 wherein he admitted the fact of filing of writ petition by Sri P.Sivaiah and another and it’s disposal. He stated that in pursuance of the order of this Court, a detailed verification was made and it was found that out of the list of 58 families furnished by Sri P.Sivaiah, only 35 families were found eligible for sanction of allotment of house site plots and the remaining 23 families were found ineligible and that the said Sivaiah and another gave a statement that they are satisfied with the verification of socio-economic status of all the 58 families before the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Tenali, on 21.02.2002. He further stated that accordingly, house site plots were sanctioned and allotted to 35 eligible families and denied the allegation of the petitioner that only ten families were allotted house site pattas and the remaining persons are still waiting for allotment. He also stated that the name of the petitioner does not find a place in the list of 58 families furnished by Sri P.Sivaiah and got verified by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that no vacant plot out of the said land admeasuring Acs.15.00 is available for distribution. As regards the plea of the petitioner that the land of an extent of Acs.3.90 cents is still available, he stated that the said extent comprised in Survey No.11/2A is not part of the land admeasuring Acs.15.00 in Survey Nos.10, 11/2B, 13 and 14, which was acquired for the specific purpose of allotting plots to the persons found eligible on the basis of the Socio-Economic Survey and that the said land is allotted for construction of houses under “Rajiv Gruhakalpa Scheme” as per the new Government Policy in 2004. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit in which he did not deny the averments contained in the counter-affidavit that no vacant plot out of the land of an extent of Acs.15.00 is available. He also did not deny the averment that the land of an extent of Acs.3.90 cents does not form part of Survey Nos.10, 11/2B, 13 and 14, in which the petitioner is claiming allotment and that the said land is acquired for construction of houses under Rajiv Gruhakalpa scheme. In view of the uncontroverted fact that after allotment of the land to the eligible poor persons for house sites, no plot is available in survey Nos.10, 11/2B, 13 and 14 of Chinnaravuru Village, Tenali Municipality, the prayer of the petitioner that the respondents be directed to allot a plot in his favour in the said survey numbers cannot be granted. Though the petitioner claims that he is also eligible for grant of house site, the said plea is not relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition in view of non-availability of any plot out of the land acquired for distribution of the same for house sites. Even if the petitioner is eligible as contended by him, he cannot compel the respondents to provide him with a house site when no land acquired for this purpose is available. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the respondents for allotment of a house site if he is eligible under any of the existing schemes. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.20776 of 2005 and WVMP.No.218 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 9th JULY, 2008. kvni