IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6163 of 2009 Between: Kallam Satyanarayana Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Guntur. 2 The Tahasildar, Amaravathi (M) at Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3 Dantu Sambireddy, S/o. Venkatewar Reddy, R/o. Nemalikallu(V) Amaravathi (M) Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in sanctioning house in favour of the respondents No.3 in the Government land under Indiramma program I.e, land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents in Sy.No.209 of Nemalikallu(V) Amaravathi(M) Guntur District, which is earmarked for construction of class rooms for Upper primary school as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to record and opposed to public police and consequently direct the respondents nos. 1 and 2 not to allot the said land to any 3rd party Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation, wherein it has been submitted that some land belonging to the Government, which is abutting a school premises, in Survey No. 209 of Nemalikallu Village, Amaravathi Mandal, Guntur District is being given under housing scheme to respondent No.3. It has been submitted that the said action of giving the land is not proper and, therefore, the grant of land should be quashed and set aside. 2. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the averment made in the petition is not correct. The land is not to be given to respondent No.3. 3. In the aforestated circumstances, we do not find any substance in the petition. 4. At this juncture, it has been submitted that the land in question might be required for the school and, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the land should be granted to the school. 5. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that there is no such proposal and if any such proposal is submitted, it shall be looked into, in accordance with law. 6. The petition stands disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 10th July, 2009 ks