Telangana High Court
WP/38696/2013 of Padarthi Stalin Prakash, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38696 of 2013 Date: 30.12.2013 Between: Padarthi Stalin Prakash and others. .. Petitioners. and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, and others. .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYWRIT PETITION No.38696 of 2013
Date: 30.12.2013
Between:
Padarthi Stalin Prakash and others. .. Petitioners. andThe State of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by its Principal Secretary,Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad,and others... RespondentsCounsel for the Petitioners: Mr. B.Devanand Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction ofthe respondent in considering the requests of the petitioners for grant ofassignment in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.128 & 129 of MotupalliVillage and Sy.Nos.828 & 829 of Chinaganjam Village & Mandal,Prakasam District, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioners pleaded that they belong to Scheduled Caste andthey are landless poor persons. That they have been makingrepresentations right from 10.02.2006 to the Revenue functionariesincluding respondent No.2 for grant of assignments of the lands in theabove-mentioned survey numbers, that on 08.09.2006, ChinaganjamGram Panchayat has passed a resolution recommending grant of pattasin respect of the land admeasuring Ac.16.40 cents in Sy.No.128 andAc.12.31 cents in Sy.No.129 and that on 02.12.2007, respondent No.2has directed respondent No.4 to hold an enquiry, cause inspection andsubmit report. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the saiddirection issued by respondent No.2, respondent No.4 has not beentaking any action.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment),on instructions, submitted that the lands in the above-mentioned foursurvey numbers have been classified as “sona poramboke”, whichcannot be assigned. She has however stated that so far no writtencommunication has been issued to the petitioners.
From the pleadings of the petitioners, it appears that they belong toScheduled Caste, besides being landless poor. As rightly pleaded by thepetitioners, it is the responsibility of the State to ensure proper distributionof Government lands among the needy and depressed people. The request of the petitioners for creating source of livelihood for them by wayof assignment of agricultural land cannot remain a far cry. If the lands, inrespect of which assignment is sought, cannot be assigned for anytechnical reason, there can be no reason why the classification of landcannot be changed unless such change is prohibited. If the lands in theabove-mentioned survey numbers are not available, the respondentsshall explore the possibility of assigning some other suitable landsbelonging to the Government, if such lands are available. RespondentNo.3 is, therefore, directed to hold a detailed enquiry into the suitability orotherwise of the lands mentioned in the above survey numbers andredress the grievance of the petitioners. He shall issue notice to petitionerNo.1 on behalf of all the petitioners and receive the material, if any, thatmay be submitted by the petitioners to show that the lands are availablefor assignment. He shall take a decision with reference to the materialthat may be submitted by the petitioners and also the revenue record andcommunicate the same to the petitioners, within a period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of this order.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel,WPMP.No.48099 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief isdisposed of as infructuous.
30[th] December, 2013v vv v
_______________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J