THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28565 of 2008 Date: 08.02.2011 Between: Madineni Vengaiah and others. … Petitioners and The Joint Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, Nellore and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28565 of 2008 ORDER : This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, granting assignment of land in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioners claim that they are in possession of an extent of Acs.10-00 situated at Thodugupalli Village, Varikuntapadu Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District and cultivating the said land since 1969. They made an application to the then Tahsildar, Varikuntapadu Mandal on 05.12.1969 seeking assignment of the said land in their favour as landless poor persons. It is their case that even while the said application was pending, the 3rd respondent granted assignment in respect of the very same land to respondent Nos.4 to 8 in proceedings Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5/1417, dated 18.01.2008. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, and as no orders are passed thereon, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent-Joint Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. As no orders are allegedly passed by the 1st respondent in the revision petition, apprehending that they would be dispossessed from the land in question, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. 3. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 8. 4. Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are landless poor persons and they have been in possession of the subject land for several years and hence they are entitled for assignment of the said land as per the assignment policy of the Government. He further submits that ignoring the claim of the petitioners, who are said to be in occupation of the subject land, granting pattas to respondent Nos.4 to 8 is arbitrary and illegal. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. While denying the aforesaid averments, it is stated that the names of the petitioners are not found in the Adangals from 1407 Fasli to 1417 Fasli and that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the said land situated in Sy.No.210 of Thodugupalli Village. It is also stated that the land in Sy.No.210 admeasuring Acs.9-92 cents is classified as “A.W. dry” in the village accounts of Thodugupalli Village and the same was inspected by the Tahsildar before issuing pattas to respondent Nos.4 to 8. It is also stated that after granting of assignment, respondent Nos.4 to 8 have removed the shrub growth and made the land fit for cultivation. It is further stated that the petitioners own different extents of land as shown in the annexure. Basing on the said counter affidavit, the learned Government Pleader for Assignment submits that the assignment made in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 is legal and valid and that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition. 6. Respondent Nos.4 to 8 also filed a separate counter affidavit. While denying the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, they have specifically stated that the petitioners own different extents of land, thereby disentitling them for any assignment. It is also stated that in pursuance of the assignment, they have taken possession of the said land and have been cultivating the same. It is further stated that when the petitioners forcibly sought to cut away the crop raised in the said land, they have lodged a complaint in Crime No.1 of 2008 before Varikuntapadu Police Station and the same is pending trial before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Udayagiri. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 8, while adopting the arguments of the learned Government Pleader for Assignment, submits that the petitioners have suppressed the vital fact that they hold other extents of lands and hence they are not entitled for any assignment. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record. 9. The assignment made in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8 is not in dispute. Their eligibility for assignment of the land, except one of them, is also not in dispute. It has been categorically stated by the official respondents that the inspection of the land was made and only after finding the land lying vacant and after due enquiry, the assignment has been made in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8. The petitioners, however, have not controverted these facts by filing any reply. 10. Be that as it may, admittedly, challenging the assignment made in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 8, the petitioners have filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent. That being so, they could have pursued the said revision petition instead of approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition. Therefore, in view of the various disputed questions touching the facts of the case, it is appropriate to direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the said revision petition within a time frame. 11. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (1) Due enquiry shall be made to verify the fact whether the petitioners own other extents of land apart from the subject land; (2) Subject to such enquiry, the 1st respondent shall consider the revision petition filed by the petitioners on 20.12.2008, after due notice to the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 8 and decide the respective claims of the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 8 for assignment; (3) The said exercise shall be completed as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (4) Status quo in all respects shall be maintained by both the parties till disposal of the revision petition by the 1st respondent. 12. Subject to above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 08.02.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.28565 of 2008 08.02.2011 (Msr)