G. YETHIRAJULU, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals emanate from the judgment of a Single Judge of this court dated 13-11-1997 passed in WP. No. 2097 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent herein filed w. P. No. 2097 of 1997 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the appellants to assign the land to an extent of Ac. 4-17 cents in Sy. No. 329 of Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural mandal, Chittoor District, in his favour in terms of G. O. Ms. No. 492, Revenue (Assignment-IV) Department, dated 25-5-1994.

( 3 ) THE averments made by the Writ petitioner in the affidavit of the writ petition are briefly as follows.

( 4 ) THE petitioner was granted Eksal lease (lease for one year) of the schedule land on 31-10-1974. It was renewed from time to time till Fasli 1387 (year 1976 ). The Eksal lease was not cancelled by any authority by the date of the writ petition. Ever since the grant of lease, he brought the land under cultivation by incurring considerable expenditure. He installed a filter point by spending Rs. 10,000/ -. The petitioner s father late Dr. Ramakrishna Rao approached the district Collector, Chittoor, to convert the said land as an assigned land on account of his being a political sufferer. The District collector, Chittoor, through proceedings dated 13-3-1999 directed the Tahsildart to issue D-Form patta in respect of the abov land. The Tahsildar without any communication and without conducting any inquiry made a proposal to the higher authorities to reclassify the land from tank poramboke to burial ground Poramboke. During the pendency of the proposal with the collector, some third parties tried to interfere with his possession in the year 1991, therefore, he filed a writ petition seeking direction from the High Court and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider his application for converting the land as an assigned land. However, the commissioner, Land Revenue rejected his request through the order dated 18-11-1993. Challenging the said order, he preferred a revision to the Government of Andhra pradesh and the Government through its orders in G. O. Ms. No. 492, dated 25-5-1994 allowed the revision petition and issued directions to the Collector, Chittoor to consider the application of the petitioner for assignment of the land in question, after taking into consideration the eligibility of the writ petitioner. In the said order, the government observed that dispossession of the petitioner after development of the land causes considerable loss and hardship to him. The petitioner has been approaching the Collector for assignment of the land in question from May, 1994. The Government also through its order dated 13-4-1995 directed the District Collector to consider the application of the petitioner and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. But the collector did not take any action on the above directions, on the other hand, the revenue authorities were considering assigning the land as house sites to third parties. The petitioner filed W. P. No. 27800 of 1995 before this Court and this Court through its order dated 12-12-1995 directed the District Collector, Chittoor to consider the claim of the petitioner with reference to g. O. Ms. No. 492, dated 25-5-1994 within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the said order. The high Court also directed the Collector not to disturb the petitioner from the lawful possession of the land. The Collector did not pass the final order on his applications on or before April 1996 and no action was taken as on the date of filing of the writ petition. The Tirupati Urban development Authority (TUDA) appears to have approached the collector for alienation of the land in its favour and accordingly the Collector passed orders directing alienation of the land in favour of TUDA. The petitioner did not receive any official communication and the revenue administration is likely to dispossess him. Hence

Click Here to Read the rest of this document