THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.826 of 2010 ORDER: There is a Government land of Acs.17.39 cents in Survey No.1488 of Munneli Village, B.Kodur Manda, Kadapa District. Respondent No.3 is serving Border Security Force and on an application made by him, he was assigned an extent of Acs.5.00 of land in that survey number. Subsequently, the petitioners herein were assigned land in different extents between Ac.1.50 cents and Ac.1.89 cents. Respondent No.3 submitted a representation before the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No.1 herein, alleging that taking advantage of the absence of his father, the subsequent assignees have encroached into the land. The matter was got enquired into and ultimately, respondent No.1 passed an order on 26.10.2009 directing that the extents assigned in favour of the petitioners on the one hand and respondent No.3 on the other, be reduced proportionately, to be inconformity with the actual extent of the land in Survey No.1488. The petitioners contend that they were not issued any notice and that in the process of reallocation of the land, the area cultivated by them is sought to be handed over to respondent No.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The contention of the petitioners that they were not put on notice, does not appear to be correct. Not only notices were issued, but spot enquiry was also conducted by the Tahsildar, B.Kodur, Kadapa District, respondent No.2 herein, before the impugned order came to be passed. It is not in dispute that the total extent of the land in Survey No.1488 is Acs.17.39 cents. Respondent No.3 was assigned an extent of Acs.5.00 of land in his capacity as a personnel of Para Military Force. It is at a subsequent stage that the petitioners came to be assigned various extents. The record discloses that no sub-division was mentioned in the pattas granted to the petitioners and that the assignment of Ac.1.23 cents was made in excess of the available area. This naturally led to the conflicts and respondent No.3 submitted a representation that the area assigned to him is being encroached. Taking an objective and holistic view of the matter, respondent No.1 directed the proportionate reduction in the extents assigned to the petitioners and respondent No.3. No exception can be taken to such an exercise. Another grievance of the petitioner is that in the course of reallocation, they are sought to be shifted from the land which was delivered to them and which was brought under cultivation by incurring huge expenditure. In this regard respondent Nos.1 and 2 must ensure that the possession of respondent No.3 in the revised extent of land is confined to the one that was delivered to him in the earlier occasion. So far as the petitioners are concerned, respondent No.2 shall ensure that to the extent possible, the petitioners retain the land that was brought under cultivation by them, duly restricting it to the extents mentioned in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.01.2010 kdl