THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 16713 of 2009 O r d e r: The petitioners claim that their ancestors were granted tree pttas in the land in an extent of Acs. 8.19 cents in Satyavedu village, Chittoor District, is classified as “Camping Tope Poramboke” prior to 1905, and that after the lifetime of ancestors, the four major shares are held by the families of the petitioners and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by collecting the usufruct grown on the trees and paying tree assessment revenue to the respondents. The petitioners state that having regard to the Order 18, Para 2(b) of the Board Standing Orders, they should be treated as sivoijamadars, based on which the Government would grant them patta. While so, the petitioners state that they came to know through newspaper reports that respondent No.2 sought to allot the land in question, to the beneficiaries under the Indiramma Housing Scheme, as house sites. They further state that when the respondents highhandedly cut down the trees in the land, they submitted representation dated 31.07.2008 requesting the respondents to stop cutting the trees. While the matters stood thus, petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 filed writ petition in W.P. No. 17215 of 2008 questioning the action of the respondents in taking steps to evict them, but the said writ petition was dismissed that the writ petition is based on apprehension. Now when respondent No.3 issued auction notice dated 06.08.2009 for auctioning the rights to cut and take the 47 mango trees in the land in question, the petitioners filed the present writ petition to declare such action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent No.1, namely the Tahsildar, Satyavedu Mandal, Chittoor District, filed counter denying that tree pattas were granted to the ancestors of the petitioners prior to 1905 and that the share is held by four families. He stated that the land in question, the “A” Register and Adangal of Satyavedu village, is recorded as “Camping Topu Poramboke”, but submitted that they do not reflect granting of tree pattas in favour of the forefathers of the petitioners prior to 1905. He contended that the petitioners did not produce the tree pattas, alleged to have been granted to their forefathers, and if really they were granted, nothing prevented them from bring the same to the notice of the revenue authorities and getting their names mutated in the revenue records, duly producing succession certificate from the competent civil court. He submitted that the land in question, which vests in the Government, was identified as suitable for grant of house sites. Based on the certificate issued by the Horticulture Department that the mango trees existing on the land in question are very old and beyond rejuvenation, they have decided to cut the trees to enable the Government to grant house site pattas to weaker sections of the society under the Indiramma Housing Programme. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Respondent No.3, namely Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, filed counter stating that the land in question vests in the Gram Panchayat/Government. The land in question, which is classified as “Tope Poramboke” was identified by the revenue officials as being suitable for grant of house sites and requested respondent No.3 to make available the said land for house sites. As mango trees existing on the land, the officials of the Horticulture Department, inspected the trees and submitted that the 47 mango trees existing on the land in question are very old and cannot be revived to life. Therefore, the Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 25.07.2008 resolving to auction the 47 mango trees and credit the auction amount to the credit of Panchayat General Funds as ordered by the District Collector, Chittoor and respondent No.1. Accordingly, the impugned auction notification was issued on 04.08.2009. The auction as scheduled was conducted on 06.08.2009, in which six persons participated, and out of them, one Sri. E. Palanai, who quoted the highest bid amount of Rs.1,86,000/-, was declared as the highest bidder, but due to pendency of the present writ petition, no further steps were taken in the matter. He thus submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. Though the petitioners claim that their ancestors were granted tree pattas in respect of the land in question prior to 1905 and that after their lifetime, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, and having regard to the provisions of Order 18, Para 2(b) of the Board Standing Orders, they are entitled to be treated as sivoijamadars so as to enable the Government grant tree pattas to them, the fact remains, respondent No.1 has specifically denied that the ancestors of the petitioners were never granted any tree pattas, and it is their case that even though the land in question is classified as “Camping Tope Poramboke” in the “A” Register and Adangal, but the names of the forefathers of the petitioners are not found. This apart, it the case of respondent No. 1 that the petitioners except stating that they are in possession and enjoyment of the land, and entitled grant of tree pattas, being successors of their ancestors, did not produce any material, much less the tree pattas, to show that their forefathers were granted the tree pattas in respect of the land in question. They are also said to have not produced any material to show that they have succeeded to the property, and that their names are recorded in the revenue records as successors of the tree pattas. In fact, in spite of adjourning the matter on several occasions to enable the petitioners to produce the Tree pattas, they did not produce the same. In the absence of any material produced by the petitioners, like the original tree pattas and succession certificate, to show that their petitioners were granted the tree pattas in respect of the land in question and that after their death, they succeeded to the tree pattas and by virtue thereof, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, and in the absence of the revenue records, recording the names of the forefathers of the petitioners as tree patta holders in respect of the land in question, no relief as prayed for by the petitioners can be granted. Be that as it may, it is the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the land in question, which is classified as “Camping Tope Poramboke”, vests in the Government/Gram Panchayat, and having identified the said land as being suitable for grant of house site pattas to houseless poor persons, decided to clear the trees existing on the land, and they have decided to clear the trees after obtaining certificate from the Horticulture Department, who certified that the trees are very old and cannot be revived to life. Pursuant thereto, it is the case of respondent No.3 that the Gram Panchayat passed resolution on 25.07.2008, for auctioning the right to cut down and take away the mango trees. Thereafter, they issued the impugned auction notification dated 04.08.2009, as directed by the District Collector, Chittoor and respondent No.1. That in the auction conducted on 06.08.2009, six persons participated and one Sri. E. Palani, who quoted Rs.1,86,000/-, was declared as the highest bidder. For the foregoing reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: 13th August, 2010 KSR