IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 24786 of 2000 Between: 1. Sri Thomala Nammaiah S/o Late Sri Singaiah R/o Thatipamula Village & Mandal, Thirumalagiri, Nalgonda District. (Died per LRs) 2. T. Rukkunamma, W/o late T. Nammaiah, 60 years, 3. T. Damodar, S/o late T. Nammaiah,39 years, 4. T. Narasimha Swamy, S/o T. Nammaiah, 36 years. (Petitioners 2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of deceased petitioner No.1 as per Court order dated 02.02.2005 in WPMP No. 29331 of 2004) ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Thirumalagiri, Nalgonda District. 4 Sri Thorupuri Rosaiah S/o Late Sri Kannaiah R/o Thatipamula Village, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5 Sri Thorupuri Yadagiri S/o Late Sri Kannaiah R/o Thatipamula Village, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and quash the Memo No. E/2610/1998, dt. 22/4/1999 issued by the 2nd Respondent, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents No.2 & 3 to assign the land admeasuring Ac. 2-35 cents in Survey No. 185 of Thatipamula village, of Nalgonda District in favour of the petitioner and issue necessary patta certificate to confer the title on the land, and pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.ARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No. 24786 of 2000 Oral Order: This writ petition is filed challenging the memo dated 22.04.1999 issued by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner’s application/representation for assignment of land of an extent of Ac.2-35 gts. in Survey No.185 of Thatipamula village, Nalgonda District, was rejected. The petitioner claims to be a landless poor person belonging to a backward class community. He illegally occupied land in Survey No.185, situated at Siddappacheru, Thatipamula village, Thirumalagiri Mandal, Nalgonda District, on what he claims was an oral permission by the Village Sarpanch and Karnam of the Grampanchayat, in 1961-62. Since then, he claims to be in continuous cultivation of the land in question. The petitioner applied to the Tahsildar, Thungathurthy Taluk seeking patta for the said land. He submitted further applications to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Thirmalgiri on 10.05.1995 and on 30.08.1995. On the petitioner’s application, the third respondent caused enquiries to be made and reported that the petitioner was in continuous possession of the land, and on that basis, addressed letters to the Deputy Executive Engineer, PWD (I&B) Sub-Division, Huzurnagar, calling for a survey to ascertain whether the land comes within the submergence of the full tank level of Siddappa cheruvu. In several reports, including the one intimated by the Executive Engineer, I&CAD, Nalgonda, in letter dated 30.01.1997, to the third respondent it is stated that the land under illegal occupation by the petitioner in Survey No.185 of Thatipamula village was not subject to submergence at full tank condition of Siddappa cheruvu. However, the second respondent, by the impugned memo dated 22.04.1999, rejected the petitioner’s application for assignment of the land on the ground that the State Government in the memo dated 19.03.1983, had issued orders prohibiting conversion of tanks and tank bed lands for alienation/assignment, and the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 157, Revenue (M) Department, dated 13.02.1987, have also ordered that no cultivation should be allowed in tank bed area. On the basis of the observations of the irrigation authorities and area development officials, as reflected in the letters addressed by those officials to the third respondent, the petitioner claims that as the land factually does not come within the submergence of the full tank condition of Siddappa Cheruvu, the land should be assigned to him and the impugned order of the second respondent should be set aside. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit, clearly and categorically asserting that the Ayacut under the Siddappa cheruvu is to an extent of Ac.84-11 guntas and that Survey No.185 falls within the tank bed area. The counter also makes reference to the Government instructions in memo dated 19.08.1983 to contend that there is a prohibition of assignment or alienations or even grant of ek-sal leases for agricultural purpose, of all tank bed porambokes. Responding to the petitioner’s averment by reference to the report of the irrigation authorities, the third respondent’s counter states that whether the land illegally occupied by the petitioner factually comes under the submergence at full tank condition is not material, as the Government has prohibited assignment or grant of lease of all tank bed lands and therefore the question of issuance of a patta to the petitioner does not arise. In the circumstances stated in the counter, and in view of the orders of the Government in the memo dated 19.08.1983, the relief as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. Whether the full tank level of the Siddappa cheruvu is being achieved in recent times or not and whether the lands of the petitioner are liable to be subjected to submergence is not relevant. What is relevant is that the full tank level of Siddappa Cheruvu is notified and recorded, and this constitutes the notified tank bed land. The policy of the Government, as contained in the memo dated 19.08.1983, declining grant of any assignment or of lease for agricultural purpose of any tank bed land, is a policy that is not in challenge. In the circumstances above, the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of relief. There are no merits in the writ petition and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court on 14.12.2000 stands dissolved. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. Date: 31.03.2009 Nsr