THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25512 of 2001 DATED: 09.09.2009 Between: P.Ekambaram, And another. …Petitioners and The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor, And another. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25512 of 2001 ORDER: The two petitioners are residents of Srikalahasti. They own agricultural lands in Chukkala Nidigallu Village. They filed the instant writ petition seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in assigning house sites to different persons in respect of the land comprised in survey Nos.252/1 and 252/2 of the said Village is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners contend that the said land was classified as river poramboke and the land in survey No.324 was classified as vagu poramboke, and therefore, under paragraph 15(4)(ii)(h) of the Andhra Pradesh Board of Revenue Standing Orders (Board Standing Orders, for brevity), the lands in survey Nos.252/1, 252/2 and 324 being “water course porambokes” house site pattas cannot be granted. They also allege that if house site pattas are granted, their lands would get inundated because river poramboke and vagu poramboke lands are situated adjacent to the patta lands of the petitioners. The Mandal Revenue Officer filed counter affidavit. It is admitted that the petitioners own lands in Chukkala Nidigallu Village. It is also admitted that their lands are adjacent to lands in survey Nos.252/1, 252/2 and 324 of the said Village, that they are classified as river poramboke/vagu poramboke. It is further stated that 300 persons whose dwelling houses situated on the roadside were evicted for the purpose of widening the roads of Srikalahasti. So as to accommodate all the 300 persons, the land in survey Nos.252/1, 252/2 and 324 were identified because there was no other land available for the same. Necessary proposals were submitted by the Tahasildar vide letter Roc.B/1067/97, dated 31.12.1997, to the Revenue Divisional Officer for reclassification from water course poramboke to village site poramboke, and after obtaining necessary permission of Joint Collector, pattas were granted to the persons evicted from road margins. It is also alleged that petitioners were wealthy landowners and encroached Government lands, and they were accordingly evicted from the land, which is now assigned as house site pattas. The allegation that the petitioners’ lands are likely to be inundated if houses are constructed in the land is denied. Petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit traversing the counter averments. This Court heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the contention of the petitioners. As per Board Standing Orders, it is true that certain lands are prohibited for being assigned either as agricultural lands or house sites. The lands in this case are not being assigned as agricultural lands. As 300 persons were evicted from the road margins on Srikalahasti Town, so as to accommodate them, the land classified as river/vagu poramboke is being identified. While doing so, the second respondent obtained permission of the Joint Collector and also sent proposals for reclassification of the land. The reclassification of the land is always permissible under law, and when once reclassification is sanctioned or ratified by the competent authority, namely, District Collector/Joint Collector, there cannot be any objection for the same even for conversion of water body for the purpose of residences. This principle has been recognized by the Supreme Court in Susetha v State of Tamil Nadu[1], wherein it was laid down as under. The case at hand must be judged having regard to the aforementioned principles in mind. The respondents categorically denied and disputed that there is any water shortage in the village. The village is situated on both sides of the National highway. It is situated near a sea and having five water tanks in or around therein. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that there had been acute water shortage in the village, as was submitted by Ms Malhotra. The tank in question is not a natural tank. Only rain water could be collected in it. It has been a dumping ground for a long time. Although there is no material on record to show as to since when it had fallen in disuse, indisputably the tank in question is in a dilapidated condition for a long time and has been used as a dumping yard and sewage collection pond. In our opinion, thus, it is not a case where we should direct its resurrection. In this case, the respondents have justified their action and also initiated necessary action for reclassification, and therefore, petitioners cannot have any grievance. The Writ Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.09.2009 vs [1] (2006) 6 SCC 543