IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.22102 of 1997 Between: 1. Smt. Asha Bee (Died) W/o Sri Late Hussain Sab R/o Guljarpet, Ananthapur Town & Dist. 2. S.Madar Sabh, S/o.late Hussain Sab 3. Smt.S.Mohiddin Bee, W/o.K.Mohammed Hussain ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer Ananthapur 2 The Joint Collector Ananthapur 3 The Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad 4 S. Ahamed Saheb D.No.9/277, Guljarpet, Ananthapur .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No.A2/643/87, dated 29-9-1989 of the 2nd Respondent and the proceedings No.B(CW)4/4311/89, dt; 18-2-1992 of the 3rd Respondent as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unjustiﬁed, unwarranted, contrary to law, Unconstitutional Unreasonable and unsustainable and set aside the same holding that the petitioner is entitled for grant of patta by way of assignment of an extent of 1.25 cents in S.No.2030/3 in Ananthapur Town and District and direct the Rspondents to assign the said land to the Petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.22102 of 1997 ORDER: The petitioner, admittedly, has encroached upon the Government land classiﬁed as Kalva Poramboke and has sought for assignment of such lands. It is her case that, while several authorities had recommended the proposals and the municipality had also given its no objection, the Joint Collector, Anantapur had, without justiﬁcation, rejected her claim for being assigned the said land and that the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad had wrongly confirmed the order of the Joint Collector, Anantapur. A perusal of the order of the Joint Collector, Anantapur, dated 29.09.1989 clearly reveals that the land in dispute is a Kalva Poramboke. The Joint Collector, on referring to Section 2(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1955, G.O.Ms.No.1142, dated 18.06.1954 and G.O.Ms.No.497, dated 25.03.1987, held that tank bed/drainage lands ought not to be assigned and that, even in case there were any encroachments in drain porambokes, the same shall be removed quickly by showing alternate land to the landless poor. The Joint Collector also noted that as per G.O.Ms.No.700 dated 20.06.1986, the Government had ordered that no Government land shall henceforth be allotted to any individual or association of persons unless the applicant was a landless poor with an income of less than Rs.6000/- per annum. The Joint Collector held that, inasmuch as the petitioner was not a landless poor, she was not entitled for alternate land and that she was ineligible to occupy Government land. The Joint Collector ordered that the petitioner shall be evicted as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1955 and the rules made thereunder, after giving her adequate opportunity, and dismissed the petition. In appeal, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad, by proceedings dated 18.02.1993 observed as under: “An unhealthy practice is developing in most of the urban areas of encroaching upon all open Govt. lands. Even areas identiﬁed for drainage have not been left without such an encroachments causing stagnation of water and also unhealthy environment in which people have to made to get assignment for a plot which is kalva poramboke and meant for drainage. The decision of the Joint Collector is therefore valid since the land in dispute is kalwa poramboke there is absolutely no justiﬁcation for assignment of this land to anyone in fact the municipal authorities should not encourage such proposals. The appeal is therefore dismissed.” The order of the Commissioner is indeed praiseworthy. He has faulted the unhealthy practices developing in urban areas of the State wherein Government lands and drainage porambokes have also been encroached upon though such encroachments are a public hazard. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the petitioner is not a constable but her son-in-law is a constable. No material was placed before either the Joint Collector or the Commissioner to show that the petitioner was a landless poor and as such her claim for alternate land was rightly rejected. In any view of the matter, even in cases of landless poor, all that they are entitled to is alternative Government land but they are not entitled to continue to remain in occupation of Kalva Poramboke lands. Viewed from any angle, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 14.11.2008 va