THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19958 of 2003 December 10, 2010 Between: G.Venkatamuni, S/o.Krishnaiah … Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.19958 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner, who is resident of Tirupati Town, owns small extents of lands in S.Nos.22 (Acs.0.10), 23/2 (Acs.0.04), 25 (Acs.0.05) and 61/4 (Acs.0.01). He approached the respondents for assignment of the land by making several representations during 2002-2003, in vain. When an attempt was made by the respondents to evict him, he filed the instant writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that his mother purchased the land in S.No.61/7 (Acs.0.24) under registered sale deed dated 21.5.1976 and occupied the land admeasuring about Acs.0.20 in three survey numbers, which is Government poramboke land. Therefore he contends that he got a preferential right of allotment to enable him to conveniently enjoy the patta land in S.No.61/7. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent. It is stated that land in S.Nos.22, 23/2, 25 and 61/4 is classified as Kalva poramboke and, therefore, the said water course cannot be assigned to the petitioner. The attention of this Court is invited to Board Standing Order (BSO) 15(10)(5) to claim preferential right of allotment on market value. The said sub paragraph was introduced by G.O.Ms.No.1725, Revenue Department, dated 26.8.1959 whereunder further instructions were given with regard to revised land assignment policy. As per the relevant sub paragraph in BSO 15 (10)(5), “isolated plot of land not exceeding 25 cents of wet or 50 cents of dry contiguous and necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the lands privately owned by adjoining ryots may be assigned to them on payment of full market value though they may not be a landless poor persons … … .” A plain reading of the above BSO would certainly support the contention of petitioner. But the statement in the counter affidavit that the land claimed by the petitioner is Kalva poramboke remains uncontroverted. In view of BSO 15(10)(4)(ii)(h), the assignment of, “water course porambokes” is prohibited. In view of this, Mandamus directing the respondents to go contrary to BSO cannot be issued. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 10, 2010. YS