HON'BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.953 OF 2006 Between: Pantham Bapi Raju and 4 others. ..... Appellants AND The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru and two others. .....Respondents ::JUDGMENT:: Counsel for the Appellants : Smt.I.Mammu Vani Dated 18/9/2006 Per Sri G.S.Singhvi, CJ Whether the land described as ‘Bodi Poramboke’ in the revenue records could be allotted to landless poor persons is the question which arises for determination in this appeal filed by the appellants for setting aside order dated 20-07-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11462 of 2006. The appellants claim to be the owners of different parcels of land situated in Darsiparru village of Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. They also claim to be using Ac.2.81 cents of land comprised in Survey No.269. According to them, they get water from the channel situated in Survey No.269, which is popularly known as “Ari Cheruvu Puntha Bodi”. They filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the allegation that Ac.0.81 cents of land comprised in Survey No.269 was divided into plots and house-site pattas were issued to poor people. In the affidavit filed by appellant No.2, Paluri Lakshminarayana, it was averred that utilization of Ac.0.81 cents of land for carving out plots is illegal and violative of para-15(3) (4)(ii) of the Board Standing Orders and the same will be resulting in depriving the appellants of their right to use the passage. The learned Single Judge examined the plea of the appellants in detail and concluded that they do not have any right to resist the allotment of land, which belongs to Irrigation Department to the landless poor persons. This is evinced from the three paragraphs of the order under challenge, which are extracted below. “ Therefore, there cannot be any dispute or quarrel with a proposition that a water-body, tank- bed land or irrigation channel or poramboke land, the assignment of which is prohibited, cannot be assigned either for agricultural or housing purpose. The question, however, remains is whether “Bodi Poramboke” can be assigned as house sites. “Bodi/Bode” is a telugu colloquial equivalent of minor irrigation channel or field channel mainly used in the Districts of Krishna, Guntur, East Godavari and West Godavari. In Telugu-English Dictionary[1], the same is defined as “a small bank in a field or garden” and in another Telugu-English Dictionary[2], it is defined as “the name of the places in a river o r creek, dug out of the bank, where country vessels are fastened and get repaired, in the manner of a dock”. Therefore, the channel as such in which the water flows by gravitation to the fields through field channel is “Bodi”. But the bank of irrigation channel, which also forms part of pathway (Puntha) cannot form part of irrigation channel. The respondents were aware of this difference. Presumably for this purpose after receiving the representation of the so- called landless/homeless persons of the village, an enquiry was conducted, survey was completed after giving notice to the petitioners and then only the Collector sanctioned grant of house site pattas. The procedure, therefore, was in accordance with the relevant assignment rules. The same does not in any manner violate the BSO or the principle of non-assignment of water course. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the survey was not conducted is belied by the record produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, which would show that as directed by the MRO, the Mandal Surveyor issued a notice and conducted survey recommending the assignment of only Acs.0.81 towards house site pattas. Further, the map (explanatory sketch) filed by the MRO along with the counter affidavit would show that the irrigation channel/Bodi flows from west to east in the area and the lands of the petitioners 1, 2 and 5 are situated on the northern side whereas the lands of the petitioners 3 and 4 are situated on the southern side. The map also shows that the house site pattas are granted not exactly on the immediate bank of the irrigation channel but a little distance away. This Court, therefore, can draw an inference that the irrigation prospects of the petitioners have not been in any manner curtailed nor the allegation that the irrigation channel itself is assigned can be accepted. An allegation is made in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the MRO to the effect that the petitioners encroached a portion of Government Bodi Poramboke and cultivated paddy along with their lands and that is the reason why they are objecting grant of house site pattas. In the reply affidavit, this is denied and, therefore, this Court cannot record any definite finding on this aspect. It is always open to the authorities to conduct spot inspection and take necessary action against any person who has encroached upon the Government land. The submission that the petitioners and other farmers are deprived of access to the irrigation channel (Ari Cheruvu Puntha Bodi) by reason of assignment of land on the Puntha cannot be accepted. Admittedly, only an extent of Acs.0.81 in survey No.269/2 has been assigned leaving balance of Acs.2.00 for pathway.” Learned counsel for the appellants made strenuous efforts to persuade us to take a different view and direct the official respondents to allot alternative site to the landless poor by contending that the impugned allotment would result in depriving of her clients of the right to passage over their fields. She submitted that Ac.2.00 of land forming part of Survey No.269, which remains after allotment of Ac.0.81 cents of land to landless poor persons by carving out 41 plots is not suitable for being used as a passage and, therefore, the order under challenge should be set aside and the allotment made by the Mandal Revenue Officer be annulled. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel, but have not felt impressed. Rather, we are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that the land which has been described as a ‘Bode Poramboke’ could be assigned to the landless poor persons as house sites and the action taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer did not result in violation of Clause 15(3) and (4) of the Boards Standing Orders. It is not the pleaded case of the appellants that the land, in respect of which house site pattas have been granted to the landless poor, belongs to them or that they have any right to possess or use the same to the exclusion of the others. Therefore, they cannot seek annulment of the action taken by the Mandal Revenue Officer to grant house-site pattas to the landless poor. There is another strong reason for our disinclination to entertain the appellants prayer. For the reasons best known to them, the appellants did not implead any of the beneficiaries to whom house sites were allotted out of Ac.0.81 cents of land constituting part of Survey No.269. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed by appellant No.2 Paluri Lakshminarayana, it was categorically averred that as per the paper report dated 5.6.2006 the Member, Legislative Assembly, Tadepalligudem had given house site pattas to poor people in Survey No.269 of Darsiparru village, but in spite of best efforts the appellants could not get any such pattas. In para 7 of his affidavit, appellant No.2 averred that it is not possible to array the beneficiaries as party respondents because the petitioners are not in a position to know who they are. This innocent attempt of the petitioners to wriggle out of their obligation to implead the affected persons as party respondents is liable to be discarded because the averments contained in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer Sri V.Satyanarayana, shows that Undi Venkata Laxmi and others have been given house sites after carving out plots from Ac.0.81 cents of land leaving a balance of Ac.2.00 for ryots usage for moving paddy from their fields. If the appellants were sincere in their efforts to find out the particulars of the persons to whom house site pattas were given, they could have filed an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with the prayer to supply the details of the beneficiaries of the house site pattas. However, the fact of the matter is that the appellants did not make any effort to find out the details of the beneficiaries. It is, therefore, reasonably presumed that they deliberately did not implead the beneficiaries of house sites as party respondents. The attention of the learned Single Judge does not appear to have been drawn to this fundamental defect in the constitution of the writ petition, else he would have dismissed the same only on the ground of non-impleadment of the necessary parties. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that non-impleadment of the persons likely to be affected by grant of relief to the appellants is fatal to the maintainability of the writ petition and this appeal. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No.2005 of 2006 filed by the appellants for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 18.9.2006 msv [1] Revised and enlarged Edition Authored by P.Sankaranarayana and published in 2004 by Asian Educational Services, New Delhi. [2] Nineth Edition Authored by William Brown and published in 2002 by Asian Educational Services, New Delhi.