IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9295 of 2004 Between: 1 K. Sunkanna, S/o. K. Chinnaiah, R/o. D.No. 49/50-A, 247. Sreerama Nagar, Kurnool. 2 Chakali Subbanna, S/o. Naganna, R/o. H.No. 87-11-01, Ganesh Nagar, II, Kurnool. 3 Obulamma, W/o. Obulesu, Ganesh nagar - II, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool district. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool district. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue Writ, order or direction more particularly one us the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein in allotting the land in S.No.781/J extent Acres 2.30 cents for house cites on free of cost to the Journalists without considering the representations of the Petitioners who were in possession and enjoyment since 1954 without notice, as illegal improper, arbitrary and against principles of Natural Justice besides being violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently direct the respondent to issue Pattas to the Petitioners who are in possession and enjoyment since 1954 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed on a grievance that the respondents are allotting the land in survey No. 781/J in an extent of Ac.02-03 cents and another extent of Ac.2-15 cents in survey No. 709 of Kallur mandal, Kurnool district for house sites to journalists without considering the representations of the petitioners who are in possession and enjoyment of these lands since 1954. The petitioners claim that the petitioners along with others are cultivating the lands in survey No. 781/J to an extent of Ac.02-03 cents since 1954 and raising vegetables in these lands. Eksal lease was granted in 1386-F by an order of the Tahasildar Kurnool dated 22-11- 1976. Since then the petitioners claim to be in continuous possession and enjoyment and even earlier since 1954. The petitioners assert that the Mandal Revenue Officer granted temporary patta on 30-10-1993, but are nevertheless bent upon allotting this land to journalists ‘free of cost’ and to the petitioners’ detriment. The petitioners lodged a complaint to the A.P. Lokayauktha which is numbered as proceedings No.1064/2003/B-1-Lokk 6537/2003 on 31-10-2003 and is pending. Apprehending dispossession, this writ petition is filed. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the land in survey No. 781/J of Kallur village is classified as Government Poramboke, a drainage channel is passing through the land and cannot be assigned to any individual for agricultural purposes. The Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation by a Gazette notification in February, 2002 ordered merging of Kallur village into the Municipal Corporation limits of Kurnool. The first petitioner was granted eksal permission in 1976 and 1993 but subsequently this were not renewed. The petitioners claim to continuous possession of an extent of Ac.02-30 cents in survey No. 781/J, is clearly and categorically denied. It is denied that the land in survey No. 781/J is considered for assignment of house site pattas in favour of journalists. It is admitted that the journalists applied for assignment of house site pattas and were granted house site pattas in survey No. 709 of the village on payment of market value and not in survey No. 781/J. The complaint made by the petitioners to the A.P. Lokayuktha is admitted and it is stated that the said complaint is pending. On the merits of the case the counter reiterates that no assignment for the purpose of cultivation could be granted to the petitioner in the midst of residential houses and that the petitioners were never in possession of the property let alone in continuous possession and only the first petitioner was in possession during 1976 and 1993 pursuant to grant of eksal permission and not thereafter. The counter specifically alleges that the writ petition is filed only to grab valuable government land. The counter is filed in September, 2004 and till date no further or subsequent pleading is filed by the petitioners rebutting the averments in the counter affidavit. In the circumstances there are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 21-04-2008 Pvks/*