THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.26612 OF 2003 Dated:09.12.2010 Between: Jerupothula Gangavva .. Petitioner And The Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagitial, Karimnagar District and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.26612 of 2003 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to the second respondent to provide legal assistance to her to reside in her house site allotted by the Government. She also seeks a direction to the respondents to extend necessary assistance to her for uninterrupted enjoyment of the property. The brief facts of the matter are that in 1981-1982, the petitioner’s father Nakka Bakkaiah was assigned house site admeasuring Ac.0.01½ guntas in Survey No.93 in Porandla Village of Jagitial Mandal, Karimnagar District. She obtained loan from the third respondent, constructed a house and repaid the entire loan amount. According to her, house bearing No.5-97 was assessed by the Gram Panchayat and she has also been paying house tax to the said house. She alleged that on 05.07.2003, third parties tried to interfere with her possession to construct Ambedkar Bhavan. She then approached the third respondent and obtained Loan Clearance Certificate dated 29.07.2003. She also requested the third respondent to return the house site patta certificate which she had allegedly deposited at the time of taking loan, in vain. In the meanwhile, when third parties proceeded further, she lodged a complaint being Crime No.138 of 2003 under Sections 147, 427, 448, 479 and 556 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was referred to the police by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagitial for investigation. She then approached the first respondent seeking legal assistance, in vain. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. The averments in the counter are as follows. The petitioner’s father was assigned house site by proceedings No.B1/6375/78. The same is different from the house site now claimed by the petitioner. The fact of petitioner raising a loan from the third respondent under Additional Rural Permanent Housing (ARPH) scheme is not denied. However, the first respondent denies the allegation that the petitioner constructed a house bearing No.5-97. It is further stated that the Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangham (AYS) requested the District Collector – second respondent herein, for allotment of land. On the directions of the second respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) by proceedings No.A/1572/2003, dated 24.12.2003 allotted the land admeasuring Ac.0.01½ guntas in Survey No.93. The Mandal Revenue Officer – first respondent herein, handed over the possession of the same to the AYS and AYS constructed a community hall which is at the slab level. The land allotted to the petitioner’s father is still vacant and therefore she cannot claim any right over the same. Further, on humanitarian grounds, the second respondent directed the RDO to allot another house site to the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent allotted land admeasuring Ac.0.01½ guntas in Survey No.190 situated at half kilometer from the site claimed by her vide proceedings No.B/277/03, dated 24.12.2003. The petitioner refused to receive the same. The petitioner filed the reply affidavit denying the counter averments. The Gram Panchayat property tax receipts are also filed. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). The plea of the petitioner that her father was assigned house site patta which is now claimed by AYS stands belied. Along with the counter, sketch is enclosed, which shows that the disputed land and the land allotted to the petitioner now are different. The property tax receipt Nos.7 and 10 are also of no assistance, because they are in relation to a house bearing No.4-50/30, whereas the petitioner claims to have constructed house bearing No.5-97. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. In all probability, there should not be any dispute between AYS and the petitioner as the land allotted to them and the house site allotted to the petitioner are distinctly different. If the petitioner has still any grievance, it is open to her to approach the District Legal Services Authority for appointment of a legal aid counsel and through whom the petitioner can seek redressal before appropriate authority or forum or Court. The writ petition, with the above observations and directions, is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J 09.12.2010 KH