JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “To issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents 1 to 4 in proposing to grant DKT Patta in favor of the 5th respondent herein for the property classified as Donka Poramboke earmarked as road margin site in Survey No390 of Satyavolu Revenue Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District preventing the right of passage of the petitioner to enjoy her property in Survey No.392/ 1 as illegal arbitrary unreasonable and contrary to A.P Board Standing Orders 15 and 21 besides being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to grant any pattas to 3rd parties or the 5th respondent herein in respect of the above property” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the absolute owner, possessor and enjoyer of land of an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Survey No.392/1 of Satyavolu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The property was gifted to the petitioner under Registered Gift Deed dated 19.11.2008 executed by her husband Mala Kondaiah. Ever since the date of said Gift Deed, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property with absolute rights. The name of the petitioner was also mutated in all relevant revenue records, obtained pattadar passbook and title deed from the revenue department under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Mala Kondaiah - husband of the petitioner purchased the property under registered Sale Deed dated 26.03.1992 from Manchala Peda Kondaiah and others. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, there is a donka abutting to eastern side of the property of this petitioner in an extent of Ac.1-34 cents in Sy.No.390 which is classified as ‘Donka Poramboke’. A black topped public road of 20 feet width leading from Kondapur to Kavali was laid about 50 to 60 years ago in a portion of the said donka, leaving site on either side of the said road as road margin. During the course of time, the site left as road margin on either side of the road is required for widening process. During the course of time, the site left as road margin on either side of the road is required for widening process. Thus, the site between the petitioner’s property and black topped road to the eastern side of the petitioner is earmarked as road margin. The same is being enjoyed by the petitioner as well as her predecessors in interest for ingress and egress, for movement of carts, cattle, vehicles and tractors to their lands. Except the said road, no other road is available to reach the petitioner’s land. It is also contended that, on either side of the said road, there is agricultural land and all the owners on either side of the donka are exercising the right of passage to reach their respective lands through the said public road and the site is earmarked as road margin and perfected the said right by prescription. 4. The petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent/Tahsildar, being influenced by the unofficial fifth respondent now proposed to assign the site earmarked as road margin in Sy.No.390 classified as ‘Donka Poramboke’ in favour of fifth respondent and his henchmen as house sites. It is contended that, the assignments of Kunta Porambokes, Tank Porambokes, Tank Beds and Donka Porambokes are forbidden as per the B.S.O 15 and B.S.O 21, as such the fourth respondent has no power, authority or jurisdiction to assign the said land either to fifth respondent or anybody else and the same is illegal and prohibited under law. Therefore, the fourth respondent/ Tahsildar is acting contrary to law, though he is obligated to implement the law effectively. 5. The petitioner made a representation to the second respondent/District Collector, marking copies to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, not to assign Donka Poramboke land (road margin site) to anyone, including the fifth respondent, as the same is being used as passage. But, the fourth respondent/Tahsildar and his subordinates visited the property on 22.05.2021 and conducted survey of the land in Sy.No.390. When the petitioner questioned about survey of the donka poramboke land, the fourth respondent/Tahsildar stated that, they are going to align donka poramboke (road margin site) abutting to the eastern side of the petitioner’s land to the unofficial fifth respondent and close the way. Then the petitioner informed about her right to passage over donka poramboke. But, the fourth respondent did not take any further action. Then the petitioner informed about her right to passage over donka poramboke. But, the fourth respondent did not take any further action. However, the fourth respondent without any authority under law granted pattas in the donka poramboke land, earmarked as road margin, which is being used as passage since times immemorial. It is contended that, assignment of it is prohibited by law and requested to grant relief as stated above. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue filed no counter affidavit, but, placed on record, written instructions received from Tahsildar, Kondapuram, SPSR Nellore District, vide Rc.B.No.149/2021 dated 09.06.2021 and on the basis of the instructions, he requested to dispose of the writ petition. 7. The specific contention of the fourth respondent/Tahsildar as averred in the written instructions is as follows: “In this connection, I submit that on receipt of news in the daily news paper on 24.05.2021 that to “stop irregular constructions”, the Mandal Deputy Surveyor and Village Revenue Officer, Satyavolu have visited the site in Satyavolu Village on 24.05.2021, it came to know that one Sri Paruchuri Malyadri, Sarpanch of Satyavolu Village has cleared the site in Sy.No.389/2 with a view to construct government building. When asked the Sarpanch for unauthorized occupation of land, he replied that the land which allotted for construction of Government building like Milk Center etc., in Satyavolu Village is far away to the village and hence requested to allot the said site for Government purpose. The Sy.No.389/2 covered by full extent of Acs.1-19 and an extent of Acs.0-37 cents is vacant on ground. Out of that extent the said Sarpanch cleared only an extent of Acs.0.08 and the remaining extent is vacant. The Village Revenue Officer, Satyavolu has stopped the leveling of the site by the Sarpanch. In this regard, a report has been submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali. I submit that, I have not proposed the above alleged land in favour of Sri Paruchuri Malyadri of Sarpanch of Satyavolu Village or for any Government purpose as alleged by the writ petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petitioner has got land an extent of Acs.1.00 in Sy.No.392. There is vacant land in Sy.No.390. No one is objecting the writ petitioner to use cart track in Sy.No.390.” 8. The writ petitioner has got land an extent of Acs.1.00 in Sy.No.392. There is vacant land in Sy.No.390. No one is objecting the writ petitioner to use cart track in Sy.No.390.” 8. The fifth respondent filed detailed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia contending that, the residents of the village have made a complaint on 17.05.2021 stating that the land adjoining the main road is low lying, in view of which several pits are formed and rain water is getting stagnated, thereby, mosquitoes are multiplying and a request was made to fill up the pits formed in the land. Thereafter, the District Collector-cum-District Magistrate through teleconference directed to take necessary steps to cover the pits and avoid inconvenience to the villages. The Village Surveyor and Mandal Surveyor have identified the boundaries. In terms of the instructions, the said land in Sy.Nos.389, 390 adjoining the main road has been leveled and copies of the photographs are filed along with the writ petition. The said land is a government land and the fifth respondent never encroached the said land, as alleged by the petitioner and it is only an apprehension without any basis. The said land can be used for any public purpose by the government, as the said land is a government land and present writ petition is filed for extraneous consideration for the reasons best known to the writ petitioner. Finally, it is contended that the petitioner is making efforts to encroach the land and trying to make wrongful gain from the property of the government and the petitioner has an alternative road to her property, thereby, question of infringing her right to passage does not arise and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue reiterated their contentions raised in the affidavit and written instructions respectively. 10. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the owner of land of an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Survey No.392/1 of Satyavolu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and there is a road with its margins on the eastern side to the land of this petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that the fifth respondent leveled the land by filling the pits which were stagnated with water to avoid mosquito breeding. It is also an admitted fact that the fifth respondent leveled the land by filling the pits which were stagnated with water to avoid mosquito breeding. But, the fourth respondent/Tahsildar admitted that, the respondents never proposed the road margin land for assignment to any person either to the fifth respondent or anyone. Similarly, the fifth respondent also admitted in the counter affidavit that he is not raising any construction and he is not claiming any right in the land. But, he filled the pits which were stagnated with water to avoid mosquito breeding, in view of the instructions issued by the District Collector through video conference. Therefore, the fifth respondent has no intention to knock away the property which is a road margin, classified as ‘Donka Poramboke’, admitted by both the parties. 11. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that, in case, the road margins are assigned to anyone, including fifth respondent, the petitioner will lose right to passage and thereby, she will be deprived of her right to enjoy the property of Ac.1-00 in Survey No.392/1 of Satyavolu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. But, the fifth respondent contended the petitioner has an alternative road to reach her property, thereby, question of infringing or invading her right to passage does not arise. However, this Court is not required to adjudicate on the issue of availability of alternative passage to this petitioner, as there is no proposal to assign the donka poramboke land or use the said land for any purpose, including construction of milk collecting center etc., as averred in the written instructions vide Rc.B.No.149/2021 dated 09.06.2021 placed on record by the fourth respondent/Tahsildar. 12. Therefore, no finding is recorded as to the availability of alternative passage to this petitioner. 13. The main endeavour of Sri Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, road poramboke in Sy.No.390 cannot be assigned to anyone. However, absolutely there is no dispute with regard to classification of the land as ‘road poramboke’ or ‘puntha poramboke’ and it is a part of road, though it is a road margin. 13. The main endeavour of Sri Venkateswarlu Chakkilam, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, road poramboke in Sy.No.390 cannot be assigned to anyone. However, absolutely there is no dispute with regard to classification of the land as ‘road poramboke’ or ‘puntha poramboke’ and it is a part of road, though it is a road margin. The petitioner produced copy of pattadar passbook issued in her favour to show that she is the owner of the property, besides Form 1-B (ROR), to show that she own and possessed to an extent of Ac.1-00 in Survey No.392/1 of Satyavolu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, and Adangal/Pahani for Fasli No. 1430 dated 26.05.2021 to establish that the petitioner is in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. A copy of Field Measurement Book issued by the Tahsildar, Kondapuram, SPSR Nellore District, is produced to establish that the land in Sy.No.390 is a road. Therefore, the petitioner could establish that the land in Sy.No.390 is a road and the said fact is admitted in the pleadings of the fifth respondent and instructions of the fourth respondent/Tahsildar dated 09.06.2021. Thus, there existed a road with its margins in Sy.No.390 in Satyavolu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 14. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the government has no right to change the nature of land from ‘Donka Poramboke’ to any other. The F.M.B copies of the above survey numbers clearly discloses about the classification of the land as would cause serious loss to the public at large. ‘Donka Poramboke’. The very purpose of the respondents laying road and leaving road margin by classifying the same as ‘road poramboke’ is for the passage of the public; the road margins are meant for future widening of the road and in case, such land is assigned, it Further, it is contended that there is a clear prohibition to assign such land under B.S.O 15(2). According to it, the extent of land preserved by the government like bunds, etc, can be re-classified to certain extent. When a road runs through the land applied for assignment, a width of at least one chain should be set apart for the road and the remainder dealt with under the rules. According to it, the extent of land preserved by the government like bunds, etc, can be re-classified to certain extent. When a road runs through the land applied for assignment, a width of at least one chain should be set apart for the road and the remainder dealt with under the rules. Similarly, when the bank of an irrigation work runs through or near the land, the extent of land required to allow a margin of one chain along the foot of the embankments should be set apart if the irrigation work is an important one such as a main canal, a main distributory or a main drainage, channel. one chain is equal to 100 links or equal to 66’ (sixty six feet), as such the B.S.O 15(2) imposes a prohibition of assignment for a width of 66’ from the bank of channel. 15. In view of my discussion and admissions of Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 about existence of road in Sy.No.390 in Satyavolu Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, road and road margins cannot be assigned, since the roads are meant for public use. 16. One of the contentions raised by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue is that, there is vast extent of land belonging to the Government and the Government is entitled to use the same according to their convenience, including alienation of the property. 17. ‘Donka poramboke’ means a passage for the local people and it being used by the local people, it can be described as communal property. That communal property though vested on the Gram Panchayat initially and divested from the Gram Panchayat vesting the same on the Government in terms of G.O.Ms.No.558, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Pts.II) Department, dated 02.03.2020, still the public or the community of the village cannot be deprived of their right to use the property. 18. In Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others (Civil Appeal No.1132/2013 @ SLP © No.3109/2011), at paragraph No.4, the Court held as follows: “The protection of common rights of the villagers were so zealously protected that some legislation expressly mentioned that even the vesting of the property with the State did not mean that the common rights of villagers were lost by such vesting. Thus, in Chigurupati Venkata Subbayya v. Paladuge Anjayya, 1972(1) SCC 521 (529) this Court observed : "It is true that the suit lands in view of Section 3 of the Estates Abolition Act did vest in the Government. That by itself does not mean that the rights of the community over it were taken away. Our attention has not been invited to any provision of law under which the rights of the community over those lands can be said to have been taken away. The rights of the community over the suit lands were not created by the landholder. Hence those rights cannot be said to have been abrogated by Section 3) of the Estates Abolition Act.” 19. As per Section 53 of the Act, all public roads in any village, other than National Highways, State High Ways and Roads vesting in Zilla Parishad or Mandal Parishad shall vest in the Gram Panchayat together with all pavements, stones and other materials thereof, all works, materials and other things provided therefor, all sewers, drains, drainage works, tunnels and culverts, whether made at the cost of the Gram Panchayat Fund or otherwise, in along side or under such roads, and all works, materials and things appertaining thereto. 20. Similarly, according to Section 55 of the Act, communal property is also deemed to have been vested in the panchayat and the income derived therefrom has been administered for the benefit of the villagers in common or the holders in common of village land generally or of lands of a particular description or of lands under a particular source of irrigation, shall vest in the Gram Panchayat and be administered by it for the benefit of the villagers or holders aforesaid. 21. According to Section 58 of the Act, the following porambokes namely, grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart stands and topes, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the Gram Panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed. 22. According to Section 58 of the Act, the following porambokes namely, grazing grounds, threshing floors, burning and burial grounds, cattle stands, cart stands and topes, which are at the disposal of the Government and are not required by them for any specific purpose shall vest in the Gram Panchayat subject to such restrictions and control as may be prescribed. 22. Sub-Section (2) of Section 58 of the Act says that the Government may, at any time by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, direct that any porambokes referred to in subSection (1) shall cease to vest in the Gram Panchayat if it is required by them for any specific purpose and thereupon such porambokes shall vest in the Government. 23. A gazette notification is necessary to divest the property from the Gram Panchayat, to vest on Government. Therefore, the bar under Section 58 (2) of the Act has no application now. The only ground that is available to the petitioner is that communal land meant for use of villagers cannot be assigned in terms of Clause (4) of Board Standing Orders No.15 which deals with lands that may be assigned and may not be assigned and it is extracted hereunder: “BSO 15(4): Lands that may be assigned and that may not be assigned: - (i) All lands at the disposal of the Government except those hereinafter prohibited may be assigned. The assignment of lands shall generally be free of market value except in the case of project affected lands in which case market value shall be collected. (ii) The assignment of the following classes of lands is prohibited: (a) Poramboke (tank beds, foreshore of tank bed cattle stands, grazing lands and reserved lands (reserved for depressed class members or for any public purpose, such as schools, playgrounds, hospitals, maternity centers, reading rooms and extension of house-sites, Panchayat purposes, town sites and lands in the proximity thereof. (ii) The assignment of the following classes of lands is prohibited: (a) Poramboke (tank beds, foreshore of tank bed cattle stands, grazing lands and reserved lands (reserved for depressed class members or for any public purpose, such as schools, playgrounds, hospitals, maternity centers, reading rooms and extension of house-sites, Panchayat purposes, town sites and lands in the proximity thereof. (b) Land which has been occupied for 18 months and adjoins a reserve forest or an unreserved block of a square mile or more until the Collector has consulted the District Forest Officer and considered any objections, he may have to its assignment; (c) Lands containing topes or valuable trees; (d) Lands within cantonment limits; (e) Lands reserved under Section 26 of the Forest Act; (f) Lands within port limits; (g) Lands near the sea coast within one furlong of high water mark of the sea; (h) Water course porambokes, namely, margins of channels, streams etc.; (i) Lands in the vicinity of aerodromes or landing grounds (i.e.) within a belt of 200 yards; (j) Lands containing minerals, quarries, etc. (k) Padugais i.e. land within the flood bank of rivers, lanka lands not held on ryotwari tenure, river accretions and reformed lands for which the owners have ceased to pay assessment; (l) Lands where "patimatti" is available and; (m) Any other lands which are required or likely to be required for any public or any special purposes necessary for the provision of amenities of the community or connected with the development of the village. Provided, however, that tank bed lands, foreshore lands and lands under categories (g), (j), (k) and (m) above, if not immediately required or if their occupation be not objectionable at present, may be leased with a condition for resumption, when required for public purpose without payment of compensation for improvements, if any effected.” 24. In view of Board Standing Order No.15 (4) (m) any other lands which are required or likely to be required for any public or any special purposes necessary for the provision of amenities of the community or connected with the development of the village, are prohibited from assignment. 25. Thus as seen from Board Standing Order No.15 (4) (m) land which is required for the purpose of maintenance of the community cannot be assigned, since the same is being used as road or pathway or passage. 26. 25. Thus as seen from Board Standing Order No.15 (4) (m) land which is required for the purpose of maintenance of the community cannot be assigned, since the same is being used as road or pathway or passage. 26. Therefore, the land in dispute i.e. Donka poramboke or Road Poramboke is only meant for public use i.e. ryots within the vicinity of the Donka poramboke for ingress and egress to their lands that means Donka is being used by the individual villagers themselves and in case the land is granted in favour of others, the villagers would be put to serious hardship. Therefore, the proposed assignment of Donka poramboke is contrary to the Board Standing Order 15 (4)(m). On this ground, the proposed assignment is illegal. Hence, I am of the view that the proposed assignment of Donka poramboke to Respondent No.5 or any third parties, will deprive the villagers at large and thereby, it drastically affects the rights of the petitioner and other villagers. 27. In the present case, the road in question is vested on Kondapuram Gram Panchayat as discussed above and unless there is de-notification, it cannot divested on the Government. Even if such Government Order is issued, as stated above, still, the same cannot be assigned, in view of the bar under B.S.O 15 and 21. 28. When the land is classified as ‘Donka poramboke’, this is only a reservation of the land for common purpose, scale, modes of utilisation, mechanism of management, with whom title of the land to continue and how the same would be described in revenue records was provided by the Rules concerned. Common purpose means for common need, convenience or benefits of village. It was further elaborated like as extension, roads, paths, drains, wells, ponds, tanks, water courses, or channels, bus stands, waiting places, manure pits, public latrines, cremation grounds and burial grounds, panchayat ghars, jhanj ghars, grazing grounds, tanning places, neera grounds, public places for religious and charitable nature, schools, play grounds, dispensaries, hospitals and institutions of the nature, water works tubewells etc., irrespective of their management by the State or not. In the same sequence, lastly it means when the land is reserved for common purpose i.e. for the use of entire village, such land cannot be assigned in view of the bar under Clause (m) of the Board Standing Order-15 (4). 29. In the same sequence, lastly it means when the land is reserved for common purpose i.e. for the use of entire village, such land cannot be assigned in view of the bar under Clause (m) of the Board Standing Order-15 (4). 29. There is no gain saying that effect on individual rights without its social impact, simply cannot exist. It is the individual right and social impact which has to be balanced. Either of them cannot be permitted to be master of the other. Reference may be made to Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 632 where the Apex Court concluded that when once the land was reserved for common purpose like earmarked land as Donka poramboke, it cannot be assigned, depriving the villagers at large. Therefore, the proposed act of the official respondents in making attempt to assign the donka land as donka poramboke in favour of Respondent No.5 or any third persons is contrary to the Board Standing Orders depriving the petitioner or the villagers at large from enjoying the right of ingress and egress to cultivate their lands. 30. In the present case, the respondents made clear admission that the land is not proposed for allotment for construction of milk center etc, or for any other government purpose, as alleged in the writ petition. Thus, it is clear from the admission made by the respondents that the land is not proposed for allotment to anyone, including construction of milk center etc and this admission is sufficient to conclude that there was no proposal and consequently issue of direction does not arise. 31. However, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others and Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (referred supra), the respondents are directed not to allot the land of this petitioner to anyone, as it is a ‘cart poramboke’ meant for public purpose, though vested on the Government divesting from the panchayat by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.558, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Pts.II) Department, dated 02.03.2020. Apart from that, there is a clear bar in identifying such land for assignment in view of G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue (Lands-1) Department dated 30.12.2019. 32. In view of my foregoing discussion, the proposed act of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Board Standing Orders referred supra. Apart from that, there is a clear bar in identifying such land for assignment in view of G.O.Ms.No.510 Revenue (Lands-1) Department dated 30.12.2019. 32. In view of my foregoing discussion, the proposed act of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Board Standing Orders referred supra. Apart from various provisions referred above, the law laid down by Apex Court in Jagpal Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others and Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (referred supra), even if the land is vested on Government, it does not mean the villagers lost the right of common usage, still they are entitled for protection of their right. Consequently the proposed assignment will deprive the villagers’ common use of Donka porambokes. Hence, I find that it is a fit case to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proposed highhanded action of the official respondents to assign the land in Survey No390 of Satyavolu Revenue Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal and arbitrary. 33. In the result, Writ Petition is allowed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.