HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23105 of 2010 Date 20.09.2010 Between: Jagadum Narasa Reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23105 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in considering the petitioner’s representations dated 07.01.2008 and 28.01.2008 for grant of assignment in respect of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.1136/1 of Doddipalli Village, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner also sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider his representations without considering whether the land sought for by him is useful for public purpose in future. I have heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). The petitioner claims to be an Ex-Serviceman discharged from the Indian Army in the year 1974. He is stated to have made the above two representations for grant of assignment of the land referred to above. Respondent No.2, through his letter dated 13.08.2009 addressed to respondent No.3, has called for a report on the following two aspects: 1. Whether the land in Sy.No.1136/1, an extent of Ac.2.00, falls outside 2 KMS purview from Mandal Headquarters or not? 2. Whether or not it is required for public purposes and also for future purposes? The grievance of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is two fold, namely, (1) that respondent No.3 does not appear to have acted on the letter of respondent No.2 in submitting a report which allegedly resulted in delay in the latter taking action on the petitioner’s representations for assignment of the land and (2) respondent No.2 was not justified in taking into consideration the fact whether the land sought for by the petitioner is required for public purpose in future. In my opinion, respondent No.2 ought to have acted with reasonable dispatch in taking a decision on the petitioner’s request for assignment. However, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the future necessity for public purpose is not a relevant consideration in taking a decision on the petitioner’s representations for granting assignment. Though the petitioner, being an ex-serviceman, may be entitled to ask for assignment under the relevant executive Orders, he does not have any vested right to insist that only a particular land should be assigned to him. It is axiomatic that public interest is always of paramount importance and the same should be kept above individual interest. If a land has potentialities of future requirement for a public purpose, the petitioner cannot insist that ignoring this aspect, the concerned authority shall assign the land in his favour. Therefore, the second contention is rejected. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to take a decision on the representations of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, keeping in view the report of respondent No.3. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.29482 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:20.09.2010 usd