IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 18935 of 1999 Between: 1 Devi Das, S/o. Venkat Rao, R/o. G.G.Nadikuda, Nizamabad District. 2 Gandle Hanumanthu, S/o. Laxmaiah, R/o. G.G.Nadikuda, Nizamabad District. 3 K.Gangaram, S/o. Sayanna, R/o. Nandipet Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Govt of A.P.Revenue Department, Rep., by its Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner for Land Revenue, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 Jt.Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 4 The Special Collector, Nizamasagar Project, Nizamabad, O/o. The Chief Engineer, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records of the 1st respondent passed in Memo No.2S/635/ASSN.4(1)/96-4 dated 9.10.1998 confirming the orders of the 2nd & 3rd respondents herein and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.NIRANJAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 18935 of 1999 ORDER: Questioning the proceedings of the first respondent dated 09.10.1998, confirming the orders of second and third respondents, the present writ petition is filed by petitioners 1 to 4. The third petitioner, Sri K.Gangaram, died during the pendency of the writ petition and, accordingly, his daughter, Smt V.Gangamani, was brought on record as his legal representative and arrayed as respondent No.4 In the order impugned in the writ petition, the Government, in a revision petition filed by petitioners 1 to 3, questioning the action of the Joint Collector in seeking to cancel the allotment of Shikam lands issued in their favour earlier, held that the first petitioner, Sri Devidas Rao, was a month old baby when the land was assigned to him and that he was the son of the Village Administrative Officer, who was already assigned Government land as a displaced person. In so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, the Government held that the lands held in his name, which were submerged, actually belonged to the third petitioner, who had received the compensation for the submerged lands, was already allotted Government land as a displaced person and that petitioners 2 and 3 were also not eligible for assignment. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would draw attention of this Court to the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.141 dated 19.04.1968, which details the rehabilitation package for persons displaced on account of construction of Srisailam and Pochampad projects. Under clause 2(i)(a) thereof, the displaced families would be granted land free of cost, equivalent to the extent acquired from them, subject to a maximum of five acres of dry land or two acres of wet land per family. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the allegation of the first respondent that the first petitioner was a month old baby was denied and it was stated that the first petitioner was not even a minor as on the date of assignment. It was further averred that, even otherwise, there was no bar for assigning the lands to minors, particularly, when the minor’s land came under submergence. An affidavit is now filed wherein it is stated that the first petitioner’s age as on date is 42 years and that, on the date of assignment, he was 19 years old. This Court does not have the necessary expertise to determine the date of birth of an individual. Even if the petitioner was not a month old baby, and was a minor, he would still not be entitled for assignment of land independently as the rehabilitation scheme requires land to be provided to a displaced family and not to a displaced individual. The finding of the first respondent that the first petitioner’s father was assigned land on his being treated as a displaced person is not in dispute and, as such, the conclusion of the first respondent that the first petitioner is not entitled for assignment, as a displaced person, cannot be faulted. In so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, the lands under submergence are said to have been sold by the third petitioner to the second petitioner. The finding, recorded by the third respondent that the third petitioner was paid compensation for such land and that he was also assigned land as a displaced person, is not in dispute. Having received compensation for the sub-merged lands, the third petitioner could not have sold the lands to the second petitioner as the land would then vest in the government and the third petitioner would stand divested of his title over such lands. As such, the second petitioner could not have been treated as a displaced person and he could not have been assigned lands under that category. The action of the first respondent, in holding that the second petitioner was also not entitled for assignment of land, cannot, therefore, be faulted. It is, however, not in dispute that the third petitioner is a displaced person and that he is entitled for assignment of the land as a displaced person. The assignment granted to him as a displaced person is sought to be cancelled on the ground that the land assigned to him was a tank bed land. While Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would draw attention to the rules which enable the Government to denotify tank bed lands and assign them to eligible persons, I see no justification in directing the respondents to assign tank bed lands in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v.Kamala Devi[1], wherein it was held that material resources of the community like tanks, ponds were nature’s bounty and needed to be protected for a proper and healthy environment, which enabled people to enjoy a quality life and which was the essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The fact, however, remains that the third petitioner is entitled for assignment as a displaced person. The first respondent shall, before evicting the third petitioner from the land in question, allot him an equivalent extent of land of a similar category elsewhere. Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that there are standing crops in the said lands and if the respondents were to now evict the petitioners from their lands, the entire standing crop would be lost. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the respondents not to evict petitioners 1 and 2 also from the said lands till 15th March, 2009. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:27.01.2009 usd [1] AIR 2001 SC 3215