THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15592 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner participated in the freedom struggle. The State and Central Governments have evolved several schemes for the benefit of freedom fighters. The Union of India, the first respondent herein, sanctioned freedom fighters pension to the petitioner. The State Government had assigned Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.154 of Narayanpur Village, Vikarabad Mandal, in the year 1993. By making reference to various Government Orders, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.06.2005 to the State Government with a request to assign Ac.5.00 of land more as well as to provide a house site of 300 sq. yd. Through his order dated 19.05.2006, the District Collector rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the land has already been provided to the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. It is not a case where the petitioner’s suffering or participation in the freedom struggle was not recognized at all. The financial benefit in the form of Freedom Fighters Pension is extended by the Union of India, which is, in addition to the facilities such as, free travel through out India and extension of medical benefits. In addition to that, the State Government allotted Ac.5.00 of land in a very prime locality in Vikarabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, way back in the year 1993. It is no doubt true that the Government issued orders stipulating the extent up to which the land can be assigned to freedom fighters in different areas, i.e. extent of Ac.10.00 of dry land, or Ac.5.00 of wet- land in various parts of the State or Ac.15.00 of land in Rayalaseema area. The concerned Government Orders stipulate the maximum limits. It is difficult to discern from them that the land up to that extent must invariably be assigned. Much would depend upon the availability and nature of the land. The petitioner is fair enough in stating that she has already sold away Ac.5.00 of land assigned to her. There would have been some justification for her to seek additional extent, had she been carrying agriculture in the land assigned to her and asked for additional extent to undertake that activity effectively. When the petitioner found it difficult to carry on agriculture in the land assigned to her and has sold away, the question of allotting any additional extent of land to her does not arise. If this is done, an honorary gesture on the part of the Government tends to a commercial venture. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 18th February, 2010 Js.