THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8236 of 2002 September 14, 2009 Between: K.S.Krishnaiah, S/o. Late Chinnabba And others …Petitioners and The District Collector, Chittoor District, And others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8236 of 2002 ORDER: Five petitioners herein are residents of Arepalli, Rangampet village of Chandragiri Mandal in Chittoor District. First petitioner is father of petitioners 2 to 5. They allege that since 1950 they had been put in possession of Government land admeasuring Acs.10.00. They brought into cultivation and in possession of lands admeasuring Acs.10.70 comprised in survey Nos.127, 128, 129 and 157 situated at Nagapatla village of Chandragiri Mandal (hereafter, petition schedule land). It is their case that in 1954 when Government started issuing pattas to economically poor persons at free of cost, first petitioner submitted application on 13.5.1954. The same was not considered. In 1995, Government notified that possession of land would be regularised and pattas would be granted on payment of market value. Therefore, first petitioner submitted representation on 24.2.1995 expressing willingness to pay 75% of market value. In spite of the same, the representation was not considered nor request was rejected. Petitioners allegedly raised mango garden in 1987. When it is at ripe, on 15.4.2002, second respondent visited mango garden and prevented petitioners from watering plants. Petitioners, therefore, filed instant writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus declaring action of second respondent in interfering with peaceful possession of petition schedule land as illegal and arbitration, and for a consequential direction to respondents to consider case of petitioners for allotment of pattas on payment of 75% of market value. This Court initially granted interim direction to respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession of petitioners. Subsequently, respondents filed WVMP No.4000 of 2002 along with counter affidavit, to vacate the interim order. On 07.1.2003, this Court allowed vacate petition and dismissed application of petitioners for interim direction. In the counter affidavit filed by second respondent, it is alleged that land admeasuring Acs.5.53 in survey No.127 is classified as Cheruvu, land admeasuring Acs.1.83 in survey No.128 is classified as Vagu, land admeasuring Acs.1.58 in survey No.129 is classified as Assessed Waste (AW) dry, and land admeasuring Acs.1.76 is classified as Cheruvu. Son of first petitioner, K.Subrahmanyam, is working as bus conductor and he tried to plant mango sapplings in the land comprising in survey No.157 and revenue officials prevented his unlawful attempts. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed writ petition. While denying various allegations made by petitioners, counter alleges that entire petition schedule land is communal land and it cannot be assigned to any person. Petitioners are not in possession of petition schedule land and when they tried to occupy lands in 2002 Government officials prevented them and protected lands. Petitioners have no right or title over petition schedule land and it is the duty of Government to protect watercourse porambokes for betterment of farmers and peasants. Petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit denying counter averments. As noticed supra, this Court on coming to prima facie conclusion that petitioners were not in possession of the land, vacated interim order granted earlier. Be that as it is, there is a clear averment in the counter affidavit that the land in survey Nos.127 and 157 is classified as Cheruvu and land in survey No.128 is classified as Vagu whereas land in survey No.129 is classified as AW dry. As per Board Standing Order 15(4)(ii)(h), watercourse porambokes cannot be assigned and assignment of such lands is prohibited. When assignment itself is prohibited, question of allotting/alienating land classified as water body on payment of market value does not arise. The writ petition is misconceived and merits no consideration. The writ petition is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 14, 2009 YS