IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 23399 of 2000 Between: 1 Mr. R. Narayana, ( Died per L.Rs) 2 Ravula Prakash S/o. Late Narayana, 1A/26, Vijayapuri Colony, Pase II, Vanasthalipuram, Hyd. 3 Smt. R. Swarajjam D/o. Late R. Narayana Srinivasa Taikies Road, Satupally, Khammam District. 4 Smt. T. Venkata Laxmi W/o. T. Satyanarayana, D/o. R. Narayana Srinivasa Taikies Road, Sathupally, Khammam District. PP-2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of the deceased petitioner as per C.O. Dt. 27.8.04 in WPMP.16262/04. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Khammam. 2 The M.R.O., Dhamapet Mandal, Khammam Dist. 3 Smt. V. Badramma, W/o. Venkateshu, Nallakunta Vill, Dhammapet, Khammam District. 4 Smt. K. Laxmi, W/o. Ramulu Nallakunta Vill, Dhammapet, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an appropriate writ one more in the nature of writ of mandamus to set aside the impugned letter 11.9.2000 in ﬁle No. E2/3234/99 issued by the respondent No.1, and consequently direct the respondent No. 1 & 2 to issue a revised patta in respect of 10 Acres of Land in the possession of the petitioner survey Nos. 273/2&3, 228 and 229 situated at Dammapet Village, and Mandal, Khammam Distric and further declaring that the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 are not entitiled to hold the land admeasuring 2 acres in pursuance of the pattas bearing Nos. 1462 & 1429 in proceedings in RC.No. B/2866/98 Dt. 13.11.1998 issued by respondent No.2. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SHIV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.23399 OF 2000 ORDER: The proceedings under challenge in the present writ petition is the order of the 1st respondent dated 11.9.2000 wherein, while observing that the petitioner was holding an excess of 0-16 guntas of land, the 1st respondent held that the petitioner should be provided alternative land to an extent of Ac.2-00 in lieu of a like extent of land having already been assigned to tribals, instead of cancelling the assignment already made to the tribals. As a freedom fighter, the petitioner was assigned Ac.10-00 of land in Dammapet village, Dammapet Mandal in Aswaraopet Taluk, Khammam District, in Sy.No.273/1, vide proceedings dated 30.6.1982. The petitioner was put in possession of the land on 8.3.1983. He claims to have raised a mango garden therein, to have dug a bore well and to have taken a power connection. He is also said to have taken a loan from the land mortgage bank to develop the land. On the ground that the petitioner was in actual possession of an extent of Ac.14-03 gts of land i.e, in excess of Ac.4-03 gts, the 2nd respondent took a decision to take Ac.2- 00 of land from the petitioner and assign the land to respondents 3 and 4. Thereafter, the petitioner addressed a representation and, consequent thereto, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 26.12.1999, directed the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Khammam to conduct survey and demarcate the land covered by the said survey numbers. Thereafter, a survey was conducted and, as per the report of the Assistant Director, the petitioner was found to be in possession of Ac.10-16 gts. Petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.15309 of 2000 and this Court, by order dated 18.8.2000, directed the 1st respondent to take the report and sketch submitted by the Assistant Director into consideration and decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed. Sri P.Shiv Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend before this Court that, as a result of the interim directions passed in the present writ petition, the petitioner continues to remain in possession of the entire extent of Ac.10-16 gts till date and that, while Ac.2-00 from out of this land was assigned in favour of tribals i.e., respondents 3 and 4, possession thereof was not given to them. Learned Counsel would submit that, since the petitioner was found to be holding excess land of Ac.0-16 gts, the respondents could have taken away only this extent of Ac.0-16 gts instead of proposing to take Ac.2-00 from him. He would contend that, since he continues to remain in possession, the respondents, instead of taking away Ac.2-00 from him and giving him Ac.2-00 elsewhere, could as well assign Ac.2-00 of land to the tribals i.e, respondents 3 and 4 elsewhere. I find considerable force in this submission. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner died and his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 4. With a view to ascertain as to whether the petitioners 2 to 4 continued to remain in possession of the land assigned to the 1st respondent till date, the Learned Government Pleader for Assignment was asked to obtain instructions. Today, the learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that petitioners 2 to 4 continued to remain in possession of the entire extent of land of Ac.10-16 gts till date. While the action of the respondents in assigning land to the tribals is indeed laudable, now that the petitioner is found to be holding only an excess of Ac.0-16 gts, it would be wholly inequitable to deprive him of Ac.2-00 of land to be handed over, in turn, to respondents 3 and 4. Instead, the respondents can assign Ac.2-00 land elsewhere to the tribals i.e, respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner is, however, found to be in possession of excess land of Ac.0-16 gts. Respondents shall, therefore, forthwith take possession of this excess land of Ac.0-16 gts from the petitioners 2 to 4 and permit them to retain only an extent of Ac.10-00 gts of land assigned to the 1st respondent earlier. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. ___________ 17-9-2008 ASP