HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24468 of 2010 Date 01.10.2010 Between: Gorthy Surya Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24468 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was granted lease for one year by respondent No.3, vide his proceedings No.A-5/5196/78 dated 30.09.1978, in respect of Ac.2.39 cents of Ward No.1, Block No.11 of Rajahmundry Town. The petitioner claimed that he is in occupation of the said property for the last 30 years even though the lease was for a period of one year. It is his further case that he has been making representations from the year 2004 and has referred to as many as three representations dated 12.04.2004, 07.04.2005 and 16.04.2010, wherein he has made a request to respondent No.3 to assign the land. The grievance of the petitioner is that while the said representations have not been considered and patta has not been granted so far, the subordinates of respondent No.3 have come to the land on 15.09.2010 and taken the measurements by claiming that the land is proposed to be given to the third parties. On the petitioner’s own showing, he is in possession of the Government land on the strength of a lease which was granted for one year. However, his case is that by virtue of permissive possession, he is enjoying the land from the year 1978. While the State is entitled to deal with its lands in the manner which subserves the public purpose, it has at the same time an obligation to act in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the statutory provisions and executive orders such as Board Standing Orders. Respondent No.3 has, therefore, to consider the petitioner’s representations in the light of the existing provisions and take a decision as to whether the petitioner is entitled for assignment or not. If respondent No.3 is satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to such an assignment, he shall do the needful. Conversely, if he comes to the conclusion that the land is required for a better public purpose, he shall pass an appropriate order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the land in question. Subject to the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.31324 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01.10.2010 usd