IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN WRIT PETITION No.9312 of 2003 Between: Sri Annapurneswari Mahila Neighbourhood Committee, Reptd., by its President Smt.Kutcherlapati Lalitha. … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, reptd., by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri D.Vivekananda Patnaik for Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Endowments for R.1 to R.3. Sri M.Adinarayana Raju for R.4. Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad for R.5 and R.6. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct respondents 1 to 4 to take steps to prevent land grabbing by respondents 5 and 6 and consider the claim of the petitioner-Society for assignment of land in favour of its members in preference to the claims of respondents 5 and 6. Heard Sri D.Vivekananda Patnaik, learned counsel representing Sri D.Ramalinga Swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4; and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad for respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner claims that its members, who are 311 in number had temporarily put up thatched houses over an area of Ac.7.60 cents comprised in Survey No.275 belonging to respondent No.4-Devasthanam. The petitioner averred that on the promise made by respondents 1 to 4 that they will make permanent assignments, the members of the petitioner-Society vacated the land; and that from the year 1990 onwards respondents 1 to 4 have not redeemed their promise by assigning the land in favour of the members of the petitioner-Society. The petitioner further alleged that respondent No.6 highhandedly brought bulldozers and poclainers to the land and leveled the same in the second week of February, 2003; and that caveats were filed in the name of respondent No.5 in the local Courts impleading the petitioner as a respondent. According to the petitioner, the land was never assigned to respondents 5 and 6. Respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed separate counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4, the claim of the petitioner that 311 members of the petitioner-Society have temporarily put up thatched houses prior to 1990 and that they were promised to assign the land, is denied. It is further stated that persons similar to the members of the petitioner-Society had been making claims over the land belonging to respondent No.4; and that they have initiated several legal proceedings, which ended against them. It is further stated that 12 members of respondent No.5- Society filed applications before the Land Regularization Committee for regularizing their plots, which were in their unauthorized occupation, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19-8-2000, and accordingly the said Committee permitted the said persons to pay the amounts for the plots in their occupation in terms of G.O.Ms.No.579 and issued land regularization certificates to those 12 individuals. Respondent No.4 gave details of the extents in respect of which certificates were issued and the amounts paid by them. The counter-affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6 is also on similar lines as that of the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.4. Having carefully considered the above mentioned facts and heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner does not have any legally enforceable right to claim assignment of the land, which admittedly belongs to respondent No.4-Devasthanam. Neither the petitioner has produced unimpeachable evidence to show that its members are in possession of any part of respondent No.4’s land or that respondent No.4 had made any promise to them to assign the land on market value. The premise on which allegations are made against respondents 5 and 6 is also proved wrong with the averments made in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.4 that 12 members of respondent No.5-Society were given land regularization certificates after collecting the market value. Respondents 5 and 6 cannot, therefore, be termed as land grabbers. At any rate, in the absence of any legal right to make a claim over the land of respondent No.4, the petitioner cannot seek the relief for allotment of land in favour of its members. In the above mentioned circumstances, I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:11-2-2010 MNR