Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Purini Lakshmana Reddy, Prakasam, vs The Dist.Collector,Ongole, on 2 September, 2022
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No. 3675 OF 2014
ORDER:
Heard Sri M. Sudhir, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri Y. Subba Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.
2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under:-
"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in granting the house site pattas to the third parties dated 03.05.2008 in the Donka or path as per the revenue records in Sy.No.2020 to an extent of Ac.8.18 cents of Kothapatnam Village and Mandal, Prakasam District which is earmarked for transportation of carts, tractors, carrying cattle grass and for carrying of agricultural products, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, Andhra Pradesh Revenue Board Standing Orders and offends Article 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to cancel the assigned house site pattas granted by the 3rd respondent dated 03.05.2008 to the third parties in the Sy.No.2020 of Kothapatnam Village and Mandal, Prakasam District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
3. The Writ Petitioners contend that the Government has allotted house site pattas on 03.05.2008 in favour of certain beneficiaries in Sy.No.2020 in an extent of Ac.8.18 cents of Kothapatnam Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. Their grievance is that a part of the total extent was used for a very 2 long time by the Writ Petitioners for transportation of carts, tractors, taking their cattle and carrying grass and also for carrying agricultural products, and therefore, the part of the grant in Sy.No.2020 in an extent of Ac.8.18 cents, is illegal and arbitrary and would affect their Fundamental Rights as the access to ingress and egress by the Writ Petitioners to their agricultural fields have been deprived on account of this impugned action of the Official Respondents.
4. By Order dated 04.03.2014, this Court was pleased to order Status Quo existing as on the said date. Thereafter, the Official Respondents filed Counter Affidavit. Relevant portion of the Counter Affidavit is extracted hereunder :-
" I submit that keeping in view of the persistent demand of the writ petitioners for protecting the Donka Poramboke in S.No.2020 intact and due to the fact that the land granted on house site pattas was not converted as A.W, an alternative remedy was thought of. In this process, an extent of Ac.1.31 in S.No.1673 abutting existing S.T colony [i.e., D.T colony] was identified with the consent of the affected beneficiaries. On acceptance of the proposal a neat layout was prepared and house site pattas were granted to all the S.T beneficiaries who were earlier granted H.S pattas on 3-5-2008 in S.No.2020.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that an alternative land was shown to the beneficiaries in Sy.No.1673, which is abutting to S.T Colony and pattas were also granted to them instead of Sy.No.2020. Hence the relief claimed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected and the writ petition may be dismissed".3
5. As seen from the contents of the Counter Affidavit sworn by the Tahsildar of Kothapatnam Village and Mandal dated 17.12.2018, it is clear that the Official Respondents have acknowledged the predicament of the Writ Petitioners and had considered and allotted alternate land to some of the beneficiaries covering an extent of Ac.1-31 cents.
6. In pursuance of the efforts of the Government, an extent of Ac.1-31 cents was identified in Sy.No.1673 abutting to the existing ST colony. With the consent of the affected beneficiaries and on acceptance of the proposal, a neat lay out was prepared and house site pattas were granted to all the ST beneficiaries who were earlier granted house site pattas on 03.05.2008 in Sy.No.2020.
7. It is also stated that the grievance of the Writ Petitioners is addressed satisfactorily by grant of alternate land to the beneficiaries.
8. In view of the clear statement made in the Counter Affidavit by the Tahsildar, which is extracted herein above, this Court opines that the grievance of the Writ Petitioners has been properly redressed by the Official Respondents and no further orders are required in this regard.
4
9. In this view of the matter, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.
________________________________ (G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J) Dt: 02.09.2022.
JKS 5 THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 3675 OF 2014 02.09.2022 JKS