ORDER The petitioner was assigned an extent of Ac.0.11 cents of land in Survey No.153/4/1 of Vedurukuppam Village and Mandal, Chittoor District by the Tahsildar, Vedurukuppam Mandal, 2nd respondent herein, vide proceedings, dated 1.6.2000. It is stated that all around the assigned land, permanent structures such as, houses have come up and it has become part of Gramkantam. The petitioner constructed a Rice Mill over the assigned land. On noticing this, the District Collector, Chittoor, 1st respondent herein, directed cancellation of the patta. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner directing him to explain as to why assignment be not cancelled. The petitioner, on the other hand, submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent with a request to convert DKT patta into patta land by collecting market value. The petitioner states that the respondents are trying to seize the Rice Mill and to evict him. He challenges the action of the respondents. 2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. He admitted the fact that the petitioner was assigned Ac.0.11 cents of land in the year 2000. It is also stated that on the instructions issued by the 1st respondent, proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the assignment and final orders in this regard, were passed on 30.12.2010. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 4. The purpose for which the land was assigned to the petitioner, was to carry on agriculture. However, the extent itself is so small that hardly one can expect any agricultural operations to be carried thereon. Added to that, constructions were made all around the plot. In case, the petitioner wanted to make any construction upon the land, he ought to have obtained permission from the respondents. However, he constructed a Rice Mill and is running it. 5. When the matter was taken to the notice of the 1st respondent, he addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent to take steps for cancellation of the assignment. A show-cause notice, dated 30.10.2010 was issued and an order of cancellation was passed on 30.12.2010. 6. Strictly speaking, the petitioner can assail the order of cancellation either before the appellate authority or before any other forum. However, the facts of the case disclose that in the small extent of land assigned to the petitioner, he has constructed a Rice Mill. 6. Strictly speaking, the petitioner can assail the order of cancellation either before the appellate authority or before any other forum. However, the facts of the case disclose that in the small extent of land assigned to the petitioner, he has constructed a Rice Mill. It is not as if the Government is prohibiting non-agricultural activity on agricultural land. To implement its marathon project of constructing lakhs of houses, considerable extents of assigned lands are resumed and house site pattas are issued. The private pattadars are also accorded permission to change the land use, on payment of 10% of the market value of the land. It is not in dispute that the Rice Mill constructed by the petitioner exists upon the land. Even if the land is resumed, the Rice Mill cannot be taken away from it. The petitioner has expressed his readiness to pay the market value. 7. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the land assigned to him, and to consider the representation made by the petitioner for payment of market value, as per the records of the Registration Department. The petitioner shall be under obligation to pay the amount within a period of four (4) weeks from the date on which the figures are furnished by the 2nd respondent. 8. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.