HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 9035 of 2004 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in allotting land comprised in Survey Nos. 109/4, 92/2 and 99/1 of Chinamushidivada, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam in favour of the third respondent as illegal and unconstitutional. A consequential direction was also sought to the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders allotting an extent of Acs.0.56 cents of Government land situated in the aforesaid said survey numbers, in favour of the petitioner on payment of market value. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.0.48 cents in Survey No.109/; Ac.0.57 cents in Survey Nos. 92/1 and 109/1 of Chinamushidivada Village having purchased the same under different registered sale deeds. Petitioner states that adjoining the said lands, there are Government lands covered by Survey Nos. 109/4, 92/2 and 99/1. He made an application to the respondents for allotment of the said lands in his favour on payment of market value. According to the petitioner, abutting the land of the petitioner, he is running a school and he required the said land for the purpose of play ground. Petitioner alleged that in spite of the fact that the Mandal Revenue Officer recommended for allotment of the said land in his favour, the said land is not allotted to him and on the contrary it was allotted to third respondent. Assailing the said action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter while denying the various allegations, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has purchased the land in an extent of Acs.0.48 cents in Survey No. 92/1. However, they disputed the claim of the petitioner that he purchased Acs.0.57 cents in Survey No. 92/1. They further stated that on an earlier occasion, when his application was not considered, the petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 16325 of 2003 and this Court by order dated 6.8.2003 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents therein to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents passed a reasoned order on 23.11.2004 vide proceedings in Rc. No. 6257/1998/E2, rejecting the representation of the petitioner for allotment of land and the said order was communicated to the petitioner on 1.12.2004. Counter further states that the piece of land, which the petitioner wants to be allotted in his favour is adjacent to Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, which is one of the major Gram Panchayats in the Mandal. Since the said land was required for Governmental purposes, the said land was handed over to the third respondent on 6.3.2004 for construction of a community hall and foundation was also laid. It is further stated that the remaining land is also required for public purpose as it is located in Urban Agglomeration of Visakhapatnam. Admittedly, the main grievance of the petitioner is that even though the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pendurthi Mandal has recommended for allotment of the said land in his favour, the respondents have not allotted the same in his favour. Hence, on an earlier occasion, when he approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.16325 of 2003 , this Court disposed of the said writ petition through order dated 6.8.2003 directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation of he petitioner. Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents passed order dated 23.11.2004 rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the said order was also communicated the petitioner on 1.12.2004. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue also produced a copy of the said order. Even though the said order was communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner did not question the same by filing any writ petition. Further, on a perusal of the order, it is seen that the said land is required for Governmental purposes, i.e., for construction of a community hall on the back side of Social Welfare Girls Hostel, Pendurthi. It is also stated that out of the total extentof Acs. 0.59 cents, an extent of Acs.0.20 cents was already handed over to Social Welfare Department. It is further stated as the remaining land in an extent of Ac.0.39 cents is located in the urban agglomeration, it would be useful for public purposes. Merely because, the Mandal Revenue Officer has recommended for allotment of land in favour of the petitioner, the same will not confer any right on the petitioner for seeking such allotment. Undisputedly, the land belonged to the Government and when it is stated that the same is required for public purposes, no direction can be issued to the respondents to allot the same in favour of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not challenge the consequential proceedings dated 23.11.2004 and in view of the averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the land in question is a valuable land and falls under Urban Agglomeration, no directions can be issued for allotment of the said land in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 23rd December, 2010 pnb