IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24909 of 2008 Between: Kedarisetty Jagga Rao S/o. Sanyasaiah R/o. Veerabhadrapeta K. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Redesignated as Tahsildar, L. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned Order passed by the 1st Respondents in Procs. No. BCW.5/733/2002 dt. 30-9-2008 confirmding the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in Procs. E2/4142/2002 dt. 26-10-2002 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary without any jurisdiction non application of mind, and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.TADDI.NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 24909 of 2008 08-06-2009 Oral Order: The order of the 1st respondent dated 30-09-2008 rejecting the petitioner’s appeal preferred against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 26-10-2002 is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.01- 05 cents of land in survey No. 90-P, Kotyala village, L. Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District by the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 13-10-1987. Earlier, the petitioner was in illegal possession of the land. There was some litigation between the petitioner and certain others who are alleged to have been trying to dispossess the petitioner. This litigation comprised both civil and criminal litigations. After loosing in the civil litigation, the third parties filed a revision before the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner was wrongly granted assignment of the land. The 2nd respondent by the order dated 26-10-2002 confirmed the assignment in favour of the petitioner, but found that the several trees standing on the land should not be permitted to be disposed of by the petitioner, but should be disposed of in a public auction and the amounts received thereby should be remitted to the government deposit. The 2nd respondent also observed that if the petitioner were willing to deposit the upset price fixed by the Divisional Forest Officer, L. Kota, he should be permitted to cut the trees. Aggrieved by this portion of the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 1st respondent, which authority by the impugned order dated 30-09-2008 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent. The impugned order records that from a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the then Mandal Revenue Officer, L. Kota had granted ‘D’ patta in favour of the petitioner without ayan conversion from Vagu poramboke to AWD; and that since the land in question was in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner even prior to the assignment, the 2nd respondent had confirmed the assignment made. The 1st respondent further observed that under the provisions of the Board Standing Orders (under which the assignment was made in favour of the petitioner) only the land can be assigned to landless poor persons but not structures and trees. The value of the tress standing on the land, except those proved to have been raised by the petitioner after issuance of the ‘D-Form’ patta in his favour could be permitted to be cut by the petitioner and not the trees which are on the land prior to the assignment in his favour. On this reasoning, the 1st respondent confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent to the extent the 2nd respondent directed that the Mandal Revenue Officer should dispose of the trees by public auction and to remit the amounts received to the credit of the government. The order of the 1st respondent dismissing the appeal suffers from no infirmity warranting interference in judicial review. The petitioner has failed to establish any legal entitlement to cut and sell the trees in the land assigned to him for the specific purpose of cultivation. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 08-06-2009 Pvks