IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21073 of 2001 Between: Bokka Bhushanam & others. … Petitioners AND The Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition, A.P., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri B. Chandrashekar Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue (Assignments) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21073 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 03.04.2001 passed by respondent No.1, whereby he conﬁrmed order dated 26.05.1988 passed by respondent No.3. As many as ﬁve assignments of Ac.0.05 cents each were granted in favour of the members of a single family on 21.01.1985. After issuing show cause notice dated 12.01.1988 and considering the explanation of the assignees including the petitioners, respondent No.3 cancelled the assignment on multiple grounds, which include violation of condition of grant, the assignees being non-residents and the site being required for public purpose, namely, playground and garden to the school building constructed in that area. The said order was confirmed in appeal by respondent No.1. Having heard Sri B. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments), I do not ﬁnd any legal error in the orders passed by respondent Nos.3 and 1. It is an admitted fact that the condition contained in the pattas stipulates that the assignees shall construct houses in a time bound manner and that the said condition is violated. Respondent No.3 has not accepted the contention of the petitioners that as they were prevented by the villagers from raising constructions, they could not raise the same. Respondent No.3 also found that the land is required for a public purpose. The petitioners failed to convince respondent No.1 to reverse the order of respondent No.3. As the ﬁndings of respondent Nos.3 and 1 fall in the realm of ﬁndings of fact, this Court cannot go into the merits of the reasons given by the hierarchical authorities in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.26569 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.09.2008 ES