THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 13336 of 2004 Dated: 21.10.2010 Between: Ponugumati Srinivasa Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Mandal Revenue Officer, Penamaluru, Krishna District and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ Petition No. 13336 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be a landless poor person has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.50 cents of Gram Panchayat land situated in R.S.Nos. 58 and 59 of Penamaluru Village. It is stated that the petitioner has been cultivating the said land from the year 1967 on payment of the land revenue regularly. He was also granted ek saal lease in the year 1974 and the same was renewed from time to time till 1987. On 25.07.1976, the petitioner made an application requesting the revenue authorities to grant patta in respect of the land in his occupation since he is a landless scheduled caste person. The request of the petitioner was not acceded to on the ground that the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat cannot be taken over by the Government for granting patta unless the Grama Panchayat expressed no objection. Subsequently, by resolution No.74, dated 15.07.1982, the Grama Panchayat passed a resolution unanimously recommending to grant patta to the petitioner in respect of the land in his occupation. The said resolution was communicated to the Tahsildar, Vijayawada vide proceedings dated 28.07.1982. Basing on the same, a notification was published in the District Gazette dated 10.08.1992 excluding the land in question from the purview of the Grama Panchayat, Penamaluru under Section 62(2) of the A.P. Grama Panchayats Act, 1964. Even thereafter, the petitioner’s request for grant of patta has not been considered. The petitioner had again made representations dated 04.05.1999 and 15.04.2002. In spite of the same, as there is no response, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not granting patta to the petitioner for the land in question is arbitrary and illegal. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Penamaluru filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in question was initially classified as Puntha Poramboke as per revenue records and the petitioner was an encroacher. It is also stated that pursuant to the resolution passed by the Grama Panchayat for assignment of the said land on 15.07.1982, a withdrawal notification was published in the Krishna District Gazette on 10.08.1992. While so, the Grama Panchayat Penamaluru passed another resolution on 30.11.1995 stating that the land in question is required for formation of kucha road from Penamaluru to Vanukuru and requested not to assign the said land to the petitioner. It is also stated that the land being classified as Puntha Poramboke was under the control of the revenue department. The petitioner’s claim that he was granted ek saal lease and the same was being renewed from time to time has been denied. Pursuant to the resolution dated 30.11.1995 passed by the Gama Panchayat, the Mandal Revenue Officer submitted a report dated 24.08.1996 stating that cost of the surrounding lands is very high and the proposed land is available for formation of the road and to reconsider the proposal of assignment. The then Revenue Divisional Officer, had surveyed the lands and submitted a report stating that the land in question was required for approach road since it is the only land available for formation of road connecting the agricultural lands of the farmers. Therefore, it is not possible to assign the Government land. However, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in his possession and he would be continued as unobjectionable encroacher as he is poor and belongs to scheduled caste. As and when the road is formed, the land left after formation of road would be left to the petitioner for his cultivation and livelihood and it is not possible to assign the lands in question. It is also stated that if the land is going to be taken over by the Government, the authorities would follow the due process of law. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the land in question is required for formation of a road could not be disputed by the petitioner. Even according to the petitioner the ek ssal lease granted to him was not renewed after 1987. It is true that even thereafter the petitioner continued in possession of the land in question and because of his long uninterrupted possession may be that he cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. It is also true that the said land was excluded from the purview of the Gram Panchayat. However, that by itself does not confer any legal right as such for grant of assignment in favour of the petitioner. Hence, no mandamus can be issued compelling the respondents to assign the land in question to the petitioner. However, there shall be a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever without following due process of law. It is also made clear that after the proposed road is laid, the petitioner’s claim for assignment to the extent of the remaining land shall be considered in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.10.2010 KLP/IVD