ORDER : Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents in insisting them to vacate their agricultural land of an extent of Ac 2.30 cents out of Ac 15.82 cents in S.No.654 situated in Gonugunta Revenue Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District, and the consequential action of respondents in taking steps to distribute the said land as house site pattas under ‘NAVARATNALU PEDALANDARIKI ILLU SCHEME’ to the weaker sections, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to respondents to remove the gravel dumped in their agricultural landed property and not to assign the said land as house site pattas to third parties. 2. The petitioners’ case succinctly is thus: a) 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children of late Venkateswarlu. He occupied the Government poramboke land of an extent of Ac 2.30 cents out of Ac 15.82 cents in S.No.654 situated in Gonugunta Revenue Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. After his death, the petitioners succeeded the said land and they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption by anybody. The 4th respondent granted Pattadar Passbook and title deed in favour of the 1st petitioner’s husband and after his demise, the petitioners are paying property tax. Earlier, the petitioners filed W.P.No.3728 of 2020 seeking a direction to the Revenue Department to mutate the 1st petitioner’s name in the online web land revenue records and for granting e-pattedar passbook and title deed and the said writ petition is pending adjudication. Further, when the revenue authorities issued an urgent notice dated 14.06.2020 and tried to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the subject land, the petitioners filed W.P.No.10113 of 2020 which was disposed of on 18.06.2020 with a direction to the revenue officials not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the subject land by setting aside the aforesaid urgent notice issued by the Tahsildar, Chimakurthy Mandal. b) Thereafter, present respondent Nos.2 to 4, taking advantage that they were not arrayed as party respondents in W.P.No.10113 of 2020, tried to meddle with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the subject land and in fact on 20.06.2020, the staff of respondent Nos.2 to 4 visited the petitioners’ landed property and started conducting survey highhandedly without issuing any prior notice to the petitioners. When the petitioners enquired, the staff of respondent Nos.2 to 4 orally informed that on instructions from superior officials, they were conducting survey as the said land was required for public purpose. The petitioners approached respondent Nos.2 to 4 personally and showed their documents of title in respect of the subject land. They informed that the land was required for allotting house sites to the houseless poor persons under ‘NAVARATNALU PEDALANDARIKI ILLU SCHEME’ and that the petitioners should vacate their land immediately, or else they would be dispossessed by using police force. Further, the 4th respondent and his staff have highhandedly removed the petitioners and dumped the gravel in the subject land which they have no right to do. So far, the respondents have not initiated any acquisition proceedings. Hence the writ petition. 3. Opposing the writ petition, the 3rd respondent filed counter inter alia contending thus: a) S.No.654 admeasuring Ac 15.82 cents is classified as Village Site Poramboke in the village accounts of Gonugunta village of Chimakurthy Mandal. An extent of Ac 2.30 cents in that land was sub-divided as S.No.654/1 and allotted to Kandimalla Venkateswarlu, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, for agricultural purposes vide Temporary Order No.57/84 dated 24.07.1984 by the then Tahsildar, Chimakurthy Mandal, subject to the condition that Pucca Patta would be granted only after collection of sub-division fee, market value of the site and upon conversion of the same from Poramboke to Ayan. However, the said temporary allotment was cancelled by the then Tahsildar vide order in Rc.E/2319/82 dated 02.08.1984 as the said land was required for the provision of house sites to Harizans residing in the existing Harijanwada which was situated in a low level and often affected badly with seepage of N.S.P. water. Consequently, the then M.R.O. issued notices under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act on all the 20 encroachers therein and after expiry of the stipulated time, notices under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act were issued to them on 14.10.1989 requiring them to vacate the encroached area. Finally, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Chimakruthy, pursuant to the direction of the Mandal Revenue Officer vide Rc.928/89 dated 13.10.1989 had taken possession of the land in question on 18.10.1989 along with the existing crop and thus duly evicted the occupants therein taking their written consent and handed over the same to the Village Assistant for safe custody. Finally, the Mandal Revenue Inspector, Chimakruthy, pursuant to the direction of the Mandal Revenue Officer vide Rc.928/89 dated 13.10.1989 had taken possession of the land in question on 18.10.1989 along with the existing crop and thus duly evicted the occupants therein taking their written consent and handed over the same to the Village Assistant for safe custody. b) In spite of the eviction under due process of law, Kandimalla Venkateswarlu, Kandimalla Koteswara Rao and Gollapudi Narayana trespassed into the aforesaid resumed Government land and started ploughing highhandedly. They filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, challenging the eviction orders and also filed W.P.No.14710 of 1989 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Court granted interim stay in W.P.M.P.No.19414 of 1989 dated 18.10.1989. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 05.03.1991 with an observation that the Revenue Divisional Officer should dispose of the appeal in accordance with law expeditiously. Later, the R.D.O. allowed the appeal setting aside the order of eviction issued by the M.R.O. under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act on the ground that the eviction orders were passed without granting alternative land to the affected persons i.e., Kandimalla Venkateswarlu, husband of the 1st petitioner and father of other petitioners. c) Pursuant to the orders of the R.D.O. in the appeal, an alternative land in S.No.653/1 measuring Ac 1.82 cents and Ac 0.48 cents in S.No.654 totalling Ac 2.30 cents in Gonugunta Village equivalent to the land in question was allotted vide temporary allotment order No.958/A/1989 dated 28.05.1993 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy. However, K. Venkateswarlu refused to accept the allotment and the same was recorded on 08.06.1993. d) While so, K.Venkateswarlu filed O.S.No.186 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsiff, Ongole, against the M.R.O., R.D.O., and 72 others seeking a perpetual injunction decree in respect of Ac 2.30 cents of dry land in S.No.654/1 of Gonugunta village. The suit was decreed directing the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till he was evicted through due process of law. The suit was decreed directing the defendants not to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule property till he was evicted through due process of law. e) Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Chimakurthy, by following the due process of law, issued a notice vide his office order in Rc.B/69/08 dated 17.03.2008 to the legal heirs of K. Venkateswarlu i.e., the present writ petitioners directing them to harvest the subabul crop and vacate the encroached village site in S.No.654/1 admeasuring Ac 2.30 cents for allotting house site pattas. The Tahsildar further offered them an alternative land in an extent of Ac 2.50 cents in S.No.770 of the same village. Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Joint Collector, Ongole, with a delay of one year and six months. The revision petition was dismissed by the Joint Collector, Ongole, vide orders in Rc.B/3242/2009 dated 17.06.2011 upholding the impugned orders of the Tahsildar and further directed the Tahsildar to take follow up action for eviction of the revision petitioners from S.No.654 of Gonugunta village. f) Aggrieved by the said order of the Joint Collector, the petitioners filed another revision petition before the Commissioner of Appeals in Chief Commissioner of Land Administration’s office, Hyderabad. When the said matter was pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, the petitioners filed W.P.No.21542 of 2011 on the ground that the Commissioner of Appeals has not passed any interim orders protecting the interest of the writ petitioners pending appeal. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.07.2011 with the observation that the 3rd respondent-Joint Collector, Prakasam District, should direct the R.D.O., Ongole, and the Tahsildar, Chimakurthy, to assign land in an extent of Ac 2.50 cents in S.No.770 in favour of the petitioners and deliver possession to them within 15 days. In case the petitioners were not willing to receive the land, the patta and intimation to receive possession of the land shall be sent by registered post. However, if the petitioners take possession of the alternative land, then only they shall be evicted from the land situated in S.No.654. Later, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Hyderabad, also passed his order dated 27.04.2012 directing that the alternative land in S.No.770 may be assigned to the petitioners. The CCLA found, there was no wrong in the order of the Joint Collector and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Later, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Hyderabad, also passed his order dated 27.04.2012 directing that the alternative land in S.No.770 may be assigned to the petitioners. The CCLA found, there was no wrong in the order of the Joint Collector and accordingly dismissed the appeal. g) In order to comply with the order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.21542 of 2011 and the order of the CCLA, an extent of Ac 3.00 of anadeenam waste land was assigned to the 1st petitioner vide D-Form patta in Rc.B/365/09 dated 12.01.2012 by the Tahsildar of Gonugunta Village. The said land of Ac 3.00 is covered by S.No.217/2P and 217/3P of an extent of Ac 1.50 cents each. The DForm patta relating to the said land was sent to the 1st petitioner by Registered Post with acknowledgment due on 17.01.2012 which was delivered on 19.01.2012. Since the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and CCLA, Hyderabad, were complied with, the subject land of Ac 2.30 cents in S.No.654, which is gramakantam poramboke, can be said to be free from encroachments for the purpose of providing house site pattas to weaker sections. h) When the efforts were made by the Tahsildar, Chimakurthy, by issuing notice in Rc.N/365/2009 dated 14.06.2020 directing the writ petitioners to vacate the said land, they filed W.P.No.10113 of 2020 which was allowed vide order dated 18.06.2020 and the impugned notice dated 14.06.2020 issued by the Tahsildar was set aside directing the respondents to take action according to law. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri Kolluri Arjun Chowdary, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayatraj & Rural Development representing 1st respondent, Sri G.R.Sudhakar, counsel representing Sri V.Vinod Kumar Reddy, Standing Counsel for the respondents 2, 3 & 6, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation representing 5th respondent, and learned Government Pleader for Home representing 4th respondent. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 6. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 6. Point : It must be said the subject matter in the present writ petition had a long checkered history which depict that the petitioners have filed several proceedings like suit, revisions, appeal and writ petitions not to protect their legitimate right in my view, but to exhibit their recalcitrance, obstinacy and tenacity to refuse the alternative land tried to be assigned by the Revenue Department of the Government in lieu of the land which they initially occupied without having any semblance of right. 7. The factual matrix in narrow compass can be succinctly stated thus: (a) In the present writ petition, it is the contention of the petitioners that one Kandimalla Venkateswarlu, husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of petitioners 2 to 4, occupied the Village Site Poramboke land in an extent of Ac 2.30 cents out of Ac 15.82 cents in S.No.654 situated in Gonugunta Revenue Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. After his death the petitioners succeeded the same and they were granted Pattadar Passbook and title deed. It is their further case that when the revenue authorities tried to evict the petitioners and issued an urgent notice dated 14.06.2020, the petitioners filed W.P.No.10113/2020, wherein this Court by its order dated 18.06.2020 while setting aside the notice dated 14.06.2020 directed the authorities to take action in accordance with law. In spite of the same, the staff of the respondents 2 to 4 visited the petitioners’ land and started conducting survey highhandedly without issuing any prior notice. When enquired, they informed the petitioners that they have to evict the land so as to enable the authorities to issue house site pattas to the landless poor under the ‘NAVARATNALU PEDALANDARIKI ILLU SCHEME”. On these main pleas, the petitioners filed writ petition claiming as if they have an inalienable right over the subject land. (b) It should be noted that after perusal of the counter affidavit filed by 3rd respondent, one cannot but come to a conclusion that the petitioners have not revealed various important and crucial facts relating to the fight between the petitioners and the Revenue Department over the subject land, particularly, the orders earlier passed by this Court regarding the so-called right of the petitioners over the subject land. Therefore, it is pertinent to ruminate the important facts revealed in the counter affidavit filed by 3rd respondent, which are not disputed by the petitioners by filing rejoinder. (c) S.No.654 admeasuring Ac 15.82 cents was classified as Village Site Poramboke in the village accounts of Gonugunta Village of Chimakurthy Mandal. Of which, Ac 2.30 cents was sub-divided as S.654/1 and temporarily allotted to Kandimalla Venkateswarlu, the husband of 1st petitioner, vide Temporary Order No.57/84 dated 24.07.1984 by the then Tahsildar, Chimakurthy Mandal, subject to the condition that a Pucca Patta would be issued to him after collection of the sub-division fee and market value of the site and conversion of the land from Poramboke to Ayan. However, the said temporary allotment was cancelled by the then Tahsildar vide proceedings in Rc.E/2319/82 dated 02.08.1984 since the said land was required for granting house site pattas to Harijans residing in the existing Harijanwada which was a low level land affected by the seepage of N.S.P. water. After following due process of law under Sections 6 & 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer vide proceedings in Rc.928/89 dated 13.10.1989 had taken possession of the land in question on 18.10.1989. (d) It is the further case of the respondents that in spite of the eviction, few persons like Kandimalla Venkateswarlu (husband of 1st petitioner), Kandimalla Koteswara Rao and Gollapudi Narayana again trespassed into the aforesaid resumed Government land and started ploughing highhandedly. Then the second round of litigation started. They filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole challenging the eviction orders. They also filed W.P.No.14710/1989 before the High Court of A.P. The said writ petition was disposed of on 18.10.1989 giving a direction to the R.D.O. to dispose of the appeal pending before him in accordance with law expeditiously. The R.D.O. seems to have allowed the appeal and set aside the order of eviction passed by the M.R.O. under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act on the main ground that the eviction cannot be done without granting alternative land to Kandimalla Venkateswarlu and other petitioners. Pursuant to the said order, the Revenue Department provided alternative land of Ac 1.82 cents in S.No.653/1 and Ac 0.48 cents in S.No.654 totalling Ac 2.30 cents in Gonugunta Village equivalent to the land in question. However, K.Venkateswarlu refused to accept the said allotment and the same was recorded on 08.06.1993. Pursuant to the said order, the Revenue Department provided alternative land of Ac 1.82 cents in S.No.653/1 and Ac 0.48 cents in S.No.654 totalling Ac 2.30 cents in Gonugunta Village equivalent to the land in question. However, K.Venkateswarlu refused to accept the said allotment and the same was recorded on 08.06.1993. Then the third round of litigation was commenced by K.Venkateswarlu by filing O.S.No.186/1993 on the file of the District Munsiff, Ongole seeking permanent injunction in respect of Ac 2.30 cents of land in S.654/1 of Gonugunta village. The said suit was decreed with a direction that his possession and enjoyment of the scheduled land shall not be disturbed without following due process of law. (e) Thereafter K.Venkateswarlu died and hence, the notice dated 17.03.2008 was issued to the petitioners asking them to vacate the land by accepting the alternative land of Ac 2.50 cents in S.770 situated in the same village. Not accepting the alternative land, the petitioners filed revision petition before the Joint Collector, Ongole and the same was dismissed by the Joint Collector vide his proceedings in Rc.B/3242/2009 dated 17.06.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed revision petition before the Commissioner of Appeals in the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration’s Office, Hyderabad. When no stay was granted by the Chief Commissioner, they filed W.P.No.21542/2011. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29.07.2011 by the learned single Judge of the High Court of A.P. In the said order, the learned Judge has clearly decided the so-called rights of the petitioners in respect of the subject land. The observations made in the said order are very much pertinent in the present writ petition. It was observed thus: “6. When there are two competing claims, one rooted in public interest and another relates to the protection of the rights of the individual, the cause of the public interest must be considered as overwhelming one. Grant of house site pattas to the socially disadvantaged sections of the society like Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes or other backward classes is undoubtedly going to achieve a far greater public purpose and also secure implementation of the constitutional goals contained in Part-IV of our constitution. Grant of house site pattas to the socially disadvantaged sections of the society like Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes or other backward classes is undoubtedly going to achieve a far greater public purpose and also secure implementation of the constitutional goals contained in Part-IV of our constitution. Between the rights of the petitioners to occupy Government land and the right of the Government to provide for a means of honourable living to the socially disadvantaged schemes of the society, the interests of the State far outweigh than that of the individual. It is not for the petitioners to suggest as to how the said objective can be achieved by the State. Therefore, to my mind, the balance of convenience lies in favour of securing relocation of the petitioners from the land in question so that the same will ultimately be allowed as house site pattas to the members belonging to the Scheduled Castes. 7. In the instant case, the State through its Revenue establishment is not acting totally, unreasonably either. It has offered to assign land of an equal extent, which is fit for carrying on agricultural operations and situated within the same village limits. The State is not now seeking to put any embargo against the petitioners eligibility to be assigned land at all. It obviously wants to neutralize the claims of the petitioners by assigning an equal extent of Ac.2.50 cents of land in Sy.No.770 of the same village. The only demand which perhaps the petitioner can make is, till the respondents assign and deliver possession of an equal extent of land to them, they shall not be evicted from the land in question. I therefore consider it appropriate to direct the third respondent – Joint Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole to direct in-turn the Revenue Divisional Officer Ongole and the Tahsildar Chimakurthy Mandal to forthwith assign land of an extent of Ac.2.50 cents situated in Sy.No.770 in favour of the petitioners and also deliver possession of the same to the petitioners. Let this be accomplished within a period of fifteen (15) days. In case the petitioners are not willing to come forward either to receive the grants/patta or take possession of the land in question, they may send this grant/patta and the intimation to receive possession of the land by registered post to the address furnished by them at Gonugunta village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. In case the petitioners are not willing to come forward either to receive the grants/patta or take possession of the land in question, they may send this grant/patta and the intimation to receive possession of the land by registered post to the address furnished by them at Gonugunta village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. As soon as the petitioners take possession of the alternative land, then alone they shall be evicted from the land in their possession and occupation, situated in Sy.No.654. If the petitioners have raised any crop thereon, it is needless that they must be permitted to harvest the same and if the crop can be cut and carried away by them, they must be allowed time for transportation of the harvested crop also. For that purpose further fifteen (15) days time may be granted to them.” Later, the Chief Commissioner, CCLA, Hyderabad passed an order dated 27.04.2012. In the said order, while holding that there was no wrong in the order of the Joint Collector, a direction was given to provide alternative land to the petitioners in S.No.770. (f) Thus, the order in W.P.No.21542/2011 and the order of the CCLA, Hyderabad have clearly decided the fate of the petitioners once for all. In W.P.No.21542/2011, it was clearly held that the petitioners have occupied the Government land in question and when their claim is pitted against the petitioners, the latter would overweigh the so-called right of the petitioners. It was thus directed that the R.D.O., Ongole and the Tahsildar, Chimakurthy Mandal shall assign the land in an extent of Ac 2.50 cents in S.770 in favour of the petitioners and deliver possession within 15 days from the date of the order in the said writ petition. It was further directed that in case the petitioners were not willing to come forward either to receive the grants/patta or take possession of the land in question, the officers may send grant/patta with an intimation to receive possession of the land by registered post and as soon as the petitioners take possession of the alternative land, they shall be evicted from the land in their possession and occupation situated in S.654. The similar is the order passed by the CCLA, Hyderabad. In view of the above orders, it is clear that the petitioners cannot claim any vested right in the subject land of Ac 2.30 cents in S.654/1 situated in Gonugunta Village. The similar is the order passed by the CCLA, Hyderabad. In view of the above orders, it is clear that the petitioners cannot claim any vested right in the subject land of Ac 2.30 cents in S.654/1 situated in Gonugunta Village. If they are inclined to accept the alternative land provided by the respondents, they can do so, otherwise they shall be liable to be evicted from the subject land. In view of the clear orders passed earlier, the present writ petition is not maintainable, in my considered view, as it has no merits. However, having regard to the earlier orders, this Court is inclined to grant last opportunity to the petitioners to accept the alternative land otherwise they should be duly evicted from the subject land. 8. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction that the respondent authorities shall, within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, inform to the petitioners in writing offering to assign a land in an extent of Ac 2.30 cents either in S.770 or in any other survey number in Gonugunta Village, Chimakurthy Mandal. In which case, the petitioners shall, within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of such offer, inform to the respondents about their option. In case the petitioners accept the offer, the respondent authorities shall assign the aforesaid alternative land and put them in possession within one (1) month from the date of receipt of consent from the petitioners. In case, the petitioners refused to accept the offer or failed to intimate about their exercising the option within stipulated time, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to evict the petitioners from the land in an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in S.654 / S.654/1 and utilize the land for distribution of house site pattas to the weaker sections of the Society. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.