IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5255 of 2002 Between: D. Govinda Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT CVNR,J W.P. NO.5255 OF 2002 The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for assignment of 3.00 acres of land in Survey No. 61 of Thummalagunta Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor district. Heard Sri S. Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asst. Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) and perused the record. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman who was discharged from Armed Forces in the year 1987. He claims that he was granted lease for one year in respect of the above mentioned land on 10.9.1974. The petitioner’s case is that though the lease was not renewed subsequently, he continued to be in possession of the same. The petitioner rested his claim for assignment on G.O. Ms. No.743 Revenue, dated 30.4.1963, which provided for assignment of agricultural land to ex-servicemen. In the counter aﬃdavit, ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, it is inter alia stated that the land admeasuring Ac.9.30 cents in Survey No. 61 of Thummalagunta Village is classiﬁed as ‘Cheruvu Thattu Poramboke” as per village accounts and that all water course porambokes and communal lands vest in the Government. It is further stated that the said land is submergible when Thummalagunta tank receives full water and the land is situated within a radius of 2 K.Ms. from Tirupathi municipal limits. It is further stated that due to proximity to Tirupathi town, the land acquired high real estate value. The answering respondent denied the claim of the petitioner that he was granted lease for one year on 10.9.1974 and stated that the available record does not show such proof and termed the documents ﬁled by the petitioner as self-serving, intended to grab the valuable Government land. In the reply aﬃdavit ﬁled by the petitioner, the petitioner maintained that the extent of Ac.9.30 cents in Survey No. 61 of Thummalagunta is classiﬁed as ‘Cheruvu Thattu Poramboke’, but not as ‘water course poramboke’ and that the said land would only submerge when the tank receives full water and the tank over ﬂows over the bunds towards higher level areas. The petitioner stated that the land is situated within 8 K.Ms. from Tirupathi Municipal limits and not within 2 K.Ms., as alleged in the counter aﬃdavit. He admitted that though a portion of the area is under cultivation, some survey numbers within the radius of the tank are developed into residential plots and houses are constructed and a by-pass road of 150 feet width emanating between Tirupathi town and Renigunta was laid in the recent years. He reiterated his plea that lease for one year was granted in his favour and was renewed for three Faslies from Fasli 1385 to 1387 vide proceedings of Tahsildar, Chandragiri dated 14.6.1975. As could be culled out from the averments contained in the counter aﬃdavit of the respondents, the very objection for assignment of the land in question to the petitioner is two fold, namely, that the land is part of a water course and the same is situated in a very close proximity to the Tirupathi town with high potential value for commercial purposes. Petitioner admitted that the land is classiﬁed as ‘Cheruvu Thattu Poramboke’ and according to him, during the rainy season, over ﬂowing water from the tank submerges the land. As regards the location, the petitioner had himself admitted in the reply aﬃdavit that neighbouring lands were developed into residential plots and houses were constructed. In the counter aﬃdavit, the respondents relied on the judgment dated 6.12.1991 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2171 of 1984 wherein it is observed as follows: “We reiterate that it is not disputed before us that the land is of considerable value and could be used for more advantageous public purpose or can be disposed of at fairly high prevailing market rates. We understand the anxiety on the part of the executive Government to preserve its property and to put valuable land for public purposes rather than assign it free of cost to political suﬀerer. We cannot agree that the impugned order held to be vitiated; by mala ide. The government is entitled and as a matter of principle it is bound to put all its assets, which really belong to the community at large to more advantageous and more profitable use.” In W.P. No. 9672 of 2003, while dealing with a similar claim for assignment of land by certain Ex-servicemen, in my judgment dated 13.8.2008, I held as under : It is an undeniable fact that due to rapid urbanization, the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad have grown by leaps and bounds in recent years. The Government extended the Municipal Corporation area to the areas, which were covered by as many as about 12 Municipalities around the twin cities and constituted Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority is in the process of being replaced by the Metropolitan Development Authority. The land in occupation of the petitioners falls in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation area and also the Metropolitan Development Authority. Being in the midst of intensive urban activity, it is not possible for the petitioners to continue with the agriculture/horticulture in future. Moreover, it is the stand of the respondents and understandably so that this land is needed for the purpose of undertaking various developmental activities. It is also a fact that due to the urbanization, the value of the lands has gone up multifold, each acre costing in crores of rupees. While the intention of the Government in preparing the scheme of rehabilitation was only to see that after their retirement from service, the Ex.Servicemen will have decent means of livelihood, such a scheme cannot be allowed to become a windfall for the assignees. The lands having become part and parcel of the Hyderabad Urban area, they can be better utilized for various public purposes by the Government. I am conscious of the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in question at least for the last 20 years. Though they claim that they were allotted the lands by the Society in the year 1974, such an allotment was wholly unauthorized because long before the purported allotments, the Managing Committee of the Society was superceded and the Society itself has become defunct. The petitioners cannot therefore claim any right to be in possession of these plots until they are assigned through proper means. While the same reasons mentioned in the abovementioned judgment apply to the instant case, due to the location of the land in question being in very close proximity to the Tirpuathi Town, the additional factor, which in my view, disentitles the petitioner for assignment of the land in question is that that it forms part of a water course. Even if the petitioner’s plea is taken into consideration, during rainy season, the over ﬂow of water submerges this land. The need to protect water courses and water bodies hardly needs any emphasis. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any reason to accept the plea of the petitioner for assignment of the extent of Ac.3.00 cents of land in Survey No. 61 of Thummalagunta Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District. However, as an ex-serviceman, the petitioner is entitled to assignment of agricultural land subject to the limits placed by the Government in the appropriate Government Orders. I direct that the Respondent No.2, District Collector, Chittoor, shall consider the assignment of a suitable alternative agricultural land to the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner is permitted to make an application to Respondent No.2 within a period of eight weeks and on receipt of such application, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of three moths from the date of receipt of the application after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing in the light of the relevant G.Os. providing for allotment of agricultural land to Ex-servicemen. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P. No.6604 of 2002 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 22nd October, 2008 pnb