The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.19964 of 2010 Date: 06-09-2010 Between: Dudakula Subhan Bee ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Kadapa and 2 others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.L.J.Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not assigning Ac.0-50 cents of land in Survey No.1151/4 of Badvel Village & Mandal in Kadapa District in pursuance of Order, dated 26- 03-1988 of respondent No.1, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Perused the record. The husband of the petitioner made an application for grant of lease over the above-mentioned land for starting a poultry farm. On receipt of the report from respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Badvel, respondent No.2- Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampet, addressed letter, dated 07-12-1982, to respondent No.1- District Collector, Kadapa, recommending for grant of lease over the said land in favour of the petitioner’s husband. However, the said recommendation did not materialize. The petitioner’s husband appeared to have made a fresh representation on 15-03-1988 based on which respondent No.1 has directed respondent No.3 to take action for assignment of the land in favour of the petitioner’s husband. The petitioner’s husband is stated to have died about 10 years back. The direction issued by respondent No.1 was not carried out. Having kept quiet all these years, the petitioner suddenly woke up from the slumber and got a legal notice, dated 19-07-2010, issued to respondent No.1, obviously, for preparing a cause of action for filing this Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though respondent No.1 has directed respondent No.3 to assign the land in question in favour of the petitioner’s husband as far back as the year 1988, the same has not been assigned so far and that this action is wholly arbitrary. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the persons, who were similarly situated to that of the petitioner’s husband, were given lands on market value and in support thereof, he placed reliance on proceedings, dated 07-02-1995. It is not in dispute that the land, which the petitioner is seeking assignment of, is a Government land. Further more, it is a tankbed porambok. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has disputed this fact, copy of letter, dated 07-12-1982, addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, filed by the petitioner herself, proves beyond any cavil of doubt that the land, which was proposed to be assigned to the petitioner’s husband, is a tankbed poramboke. The extant provisions contained in the Board Standing Orders and followed by various administrative Circulars issued from time to time strictly prohibited assignment of tankbed lands for any purpose whatsoever. This Court is at a loss to know how respondent No.2, while specifically stating that the land in question is classified as a tankbed porambok, could recommend for grant of lease in respect of the same in favour of the petitioner’s husband. Another interesting feature of this case is that the petitioner’s husband started with a request for grant of lease and has subsequently approached respondent No.1 with a request to assign the said land. Respondent No.1 appeared to have readily agreed for this request and directed his subordinates to grant assignment. However, for the reasons, which are not available on record, the direction given by respondent No.1 was not carried out and as a result, proceedings dated 26- 03-1988 remained a dead letter. For more than two decades thereafter, neither the petitioner’s husband nor the petitioner after his death have remembered the said order and as noted above, the petitioner has suddenly woken up and got the above-mentioned legal notice issued. In my opinion, neither the petitioner’s husband nor the petitioner had any right whatsoever for insisting on assignment of a Government land for starting a business. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any provision of law by which such a request can be made. Even if respondent No.1 has taken a decision in the year 1988 itself that such an assignment should be made, the said decision, not supported by sanction of law, cannot be directed to be implemented by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more so, when the said land was a tankbed poramboke, assignment of which is strictly prohibited. Coming to proceedings, dated 07-02-1995, on which the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, a perusal of the said proceedings shows that an extent of Ac.0-02 ½ cents of land, which was evidently in occupation of the assignee therein, was alienated to him on market value. Nodoubt, the said land was also tankbed porambok. In strict sense, such an alienation should not have been made. However, the petitioner cannot insist that one illegality should lead to another and she cannot plead negative equity. In State of Bihar vs. Narayan Singh[1], the Supreme Court held as under: “Guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke jurisdiction of higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or passing wrong order…..” For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is wholly without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 13-08-2010, is vacated and WPMP.No.25298 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 6th September, 2010 lur [1] (2009) 5 SCC 65