IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19006 of 1999 Between: Makara Kuraba Venkata Ramanappa S/o M. Rangappa M K Kottala, Muddinaryanipalli Village, Kalyanadurg Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Anantapur District. 3 The Joint Collector, Anantapur District. 4 The Commissioner Land Revenue Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 5 Boya Ramanajeyulu, S/o Yerra Akulappa, Muddinayanipalli Village, Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Certiorari to call for the records in and relating to D.Dis.(B)/1177/94 dated 28/1/1995 of 2nd Respondent Rc. NO. A/10/2161/95, dated 10/4/1998 of the 3rd Respondent and Proc. No. BCW1/699/98, dt. 9/4/1999 of 4th Respondent and set aside the same holding that the Petitioner is entitled for retention of land admeasuring Ac. 5.20 cents in Survey No. 106-1 of Muddinayanipalli Village, Kalyandurg Mandal, Anantapur District by protecting the Cowl patta granted by the 1st Respondent on 29/4/1994 and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 19006 OF 1999 ORDER: The 1st respondent issued a cowl patta in favour of the petitioner herein for planting trees in Sy.No.106/1 of Muddinayanipalli Village, Kalyandurg Mandal, Ananthapur District. Petitioner claims to have taken possession of the land and to have planted trees thereon. The 5th respondent who claimed to be in possession of the land preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent passed order dated 28.1.1995 observing that the said land was government waste land, not government poramboke land, and as such the 1st respondent could not have granted cowl patta in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a revision before the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent, in his order, observed that the land was cultivable land and that cowl patta should not have been granted in respect of such lands. Accordingly the revision petition was dismissed. A further revision preferred by the petitioner before the 4th respondent also came to be dismissed and the 4th respondent observed that it was clear from the records of the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was not eligible for assignment and grant of cowl patta in the land and that the action of the 1st respondent in granting such a patta was unauthorized and improper. The order in revision is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. Sri P.Veera Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the land was in fact government poramboke land and that the M.R.O. had rightly granted cowl patta in favour of the petitioner. He would state that the petitioner had raised more than 8000 plants in the land after obtaining plants from the forest department and that cancellation of the cowl patta adversely affected the petitioner’s rights since he was not even been paid compensation for the 8000 plants raised by him. With regards the petitioner’s contention that the land is government poramboke land, all the authorities i.e., R.D.O, Joint Collector and Commissioner of Land Revenue have recorded a finding that the said land is not government poramboke land and that cowl pattas could not have been granted over such land. This Court, in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not sit in appeal over such findings of fact. I see no reason, therefore, to go into the factual aspects of the dispute and examine whether the land in question was government poramboke land or not since nothing has been shown to hold that the finding recorded by respondents 2 to 4 are either perverse or are based on no evidence. With regards the plea of raising 8,000 plants, these are all matters of evidence which cannot, ordinarily, be gone into in writ proceedings. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as are available to him in law with regards his claim to be paid compensation for the 8000 plants allegedly planted by him, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. __________ 13-8-2008 asp