IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 67 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/08/2008 in WP NO : 366 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Dasari Ramadas Reddy, S/o.D.Chenga Reddy, 6-7-557, Sripuram Colony, KT Road, Harekrishna Marg, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Mandal Revenue officer, Ramachandrapuram, Chittoor District. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor. 3 The Commissioner of Land Administration, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Govt., of AP rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Assn.IV) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:MR.BRAHMADANDI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 67 of 2009. J U D G M E N T: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) This writ appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 28-8-2008 dismissing WP.No.366 of 2005 by the learned single Judge. 2. The learned single Judge found that the land sought by the petitioner was Kunta Poramboke and that the assignment of the same is prohibited as per law. Accordingly, the learned single Judge upheld the impugned proceedings dated 04-01-2005 rejecting the request of the petitioner for assignment of Ac:5-16 cents in survey No.34/3 of C.Ramapuram village of Ramachandrapuram Revenue Mandal, Chittoor district. 3. The affidavit filed in the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal proceedings clearly indicates that he himself states that he occupied subject land on the advise of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kammapalle. However, the learned counsel for the appellant advanced arguments before us building up totally a different case stating to the effect that the appellant was leased an extent of Ac:4-00 out of the subject land as long back as in the year 1986 and thereafter he was also issued “D” form patta and pattedar passbook. However, no recitals to this effect are found in the pleadings either in the writ petition or writ appeal. Further the impugned proceedings dated 04-1-2005 clearly indicates that the request of the appellant for assignment of the entire extent of Ac:5- 16 cents of subject land. In view of the discrepancy in the pleadings and the arguments advanced before us, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for interference in this writ appeal. The order of the learned single Judge up holding the impugned proceedings and leaving it open to the appellant to approach the authorities for assignment of the land cannot be found fault with. The writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 10-6-2009 I s L