IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.1362 OF 2006 Between: K.Gangulappa. … Petitioner AND The District Collector, Anantapur and four others. … Respondents This Court made the following: O R D E R : The petitioner, apprehending that the respondent authorities were taking action to convert his assigned land in Sy.No.138 of Katakamvaripalle, Hamlet of Mudupulajeevi Village, N.P.Kunta Mandal, Anantapur District, into a water tank, filed the present case. 2. The petitioner was assigned a patta in respect of the subject land admeasuring Ac.1.40 cents in Sy.No.138 of the Village vide D.A.No.322/85 dated 11-08-1977. He claims to have been in possession of the assigned land since then. While so, it is his case that the respondent authorities tried to convert his land into a tank. Complaining that he was not put on notice before the work of raising a bund adjacent to his land was initiated, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The Assistant Project Director, Kadiri Cluster, Kadiri, Anantapur District, the third respondent herein, filed a counter admitting that the petitioner was assigned an extent of land admeasuring Ac.1.40 cents in Sy.No.138 of Katakamvaripalli Hamlet of Mudupulajeevi Village, N.P.Kunta Mandal, Anantapur District in August, 1977. According to him, during the sub-division of Sy.No.138, the land assigned to the petitioner fell in the sub-divided Sy.Nos.138/3, 138/4 and 138/6. He stated that in the year 2005, the Gram Panchayat of Mekalacheruvu Village passed a resolution for strengthening the bund of the existing tank, Naluvula Kunta in sub-divided Sy.No.138/1. He specifically stated that the assigned land in the petitioner’s possession was not converted into a water tank and the full tank level of the tank was also maintained without alteration, thereby causing no adverse effect upon the petitioner’s land. The strengthening of the bund of the existing tank was said to have been completed on 10-01- 2006. The stand of the third respondent is taken on record. 4. In the light of the afore stated facts, it is clear that the petitioner’s grievance was only based on mere apprehension and there was actually no cause for him to have approached this Court. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 17-02-2011. KVS/RKK