WP/27008/2005 of Juvvanapudi Lakshmayya, Vs The District Collector, on 27 December 2005

ORDER:

WRIT PETITION No.27008 of 2005

The three petitioners claim that they have been cultivating the land admeasuringAcs.2.60 forming part of land comprised in R.S.Nos.17 and 36 of Atchampalemhamlet of Srikakulam village of Ghantasala Mandal in Krishna District. They claim tobe in possession of the land for more than 60 years. They allegedly submitted anapplication on 30.3.1988 to the fourth respondent namely, the Mandal RevenueOfficer (MRO), Ghantasala Mandal, requesting assignment of the land. They alsoallege that on a request made by them, the Executive Engineer (Drainage Division)as well as the Sarpanch of the Gram panchayat did not raise any objection forassignment. In the meanwhile, the sixth respondent requested the MRO for laying aroad in the land in question, which the MRO refused on the ground that there arealready four roads i.e., donka roads. The sixth respondent questioned the decisionof the MRO before the second respondent, who directed the authorities to lay apathway with 30 links width in the field and five links in the field channel inR.S.Nos.17 and 36. Pursuant to such direction, respondents 2 and 3 initiated proceedings for laying the road, aggrieved by which, the first petitioner hereinpreferred a review petition and the same is pending. As the respondents startedtaking necessary steps for laying the road, the present writ petition is filed. Thepetitioners pray for a declaration that the action of the respondents in laying the roadin the middle of the fields in R.S.Nos.17 and 36 pending consideration ofassignment proceedings as illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that when thepetitioners’ application for assignment of the land is pending, it would be illegal andimproper for the respondents 2 and 3 to lay the road in the lands under occupation ofthe petitioners and it is only to help the sixth respondent. He emphatically submitsthat the road is being laid for the benefit of sixth respondent though there are otherroads, which are being used as pathways. Per contra, the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue (General), after getting instructions in the matter,submits that the land in R.S.No.17 is classified as drain poramboke and the land inR.S.No.36 is classified as donka poramboke. Therefore, the existing pathway isbeing strengthened, as directed by the second respondent in order dated 18.6.2004.

A perusal of the proceedings of the Joint Collector dated 18.6.2004 would show thatabout 20 villagers of Atchampalem village filed a representation before the JointCollector requesting for eviction of encroachers in the land in R.S.Nos.17 and 36 forthe purpose of pathway and also for restoration of field channel. The RevenueDivisional Officer (RDO), Bandar conducted enquiry on the representation andsubmitted report to the effect that there is a drain course in R.S.No.22 and a smalldrain course below R.S.Nos.35, 131 and 129, which is a donka. The small draincourse started below the R.S.No.131 ended upto R.S.No.35 merged with the bigdrain course in R.S.No.22 and that R.S.No.17 is classified as drain porambokewhereas R.S.No.36 is classified as pathway poramboke. The RDO also conductedfield inspection during which he asked the encroachers to give seven links fieldchannel and a part of the donka poramboke, in vain. Therefore, he suggested toprovide 30 links pathway and five links field channel for both the porambokes forwhich the land is earmarked. After considering the same, a direction was issued tothe second respondent to take up the work as noticed herein above. The order of theJoint Collector would show that the land encroached upon by the petitioners isclassified as drain poramboke and donka poramboke (pathway poramboke) andtherefore, even if the petitioners’ application for assignment is pending, the samedoes not in any manner prohibit the respondents to take up the work. As per BoardStanding Order 15, the assignment of donka porambokes, drain porakbokes andsuch other lands is prohibited. The petitioners, therefore, may make an applicationfor assignment of land, which is classified as assessed waste and is not intended forother purposes. When the land, which is earmarked as donka poramboke and drainporamboke, is being restored to its original possession, this Court cannot interfere inexercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

December 27, 2005.

YS

_____________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)