ORDER : This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “… to pass an order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writ of Mandamus and to declare the High handed action of the Respondents in trying to construct Raithu Barosa Kendram in the common passage land i.e., Kali Bata/Donka Lands in R.S.No.86 Southern side of the Petitioner’s Agricultural land situated in Jatlapalem Village, Pentapadu Mandal, W.G. District, as illegal, arbitrary and Violative of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India against the 15(4) of the A.P. Board Standing Orders consequently direct the Respondents not to construct Raithu Barosa Kendram or any other construction in Kali Bata / Donka Southern side of the Petitioner’s Agricultural Lands in RS.No.86 situated in Jatlapalem Village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, and to pass such other order or orders …” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner possesses agricultural land in R.S.No.105/6 in Jatlapalem Village, Pentapadu Mandal. On the southern side of the petitioner’s land, Kali bata exists in survey No.86. Petitioner and other villagers have been using the said path as passage. Respondents are intending to construct Rythu Barosa Kendram in Kali bata. In fact, Rythu Barosa Kendram is in existence and is being run near Gollagudem Vinayaka Temple. Construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram in kali bata is contrary to Rule 15(4) of the A.P. Board Standing Orders. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondent No.4-Tahsildar filed counter affidavit and contended that Government of A.P. issued orders vide Government Memo No.1134182/RDII/A1/2020 dated 11.04.2020 and 16.04.2020 read with Roc.DEE/MGNREGS/ 2019 dated 15.10.2019, to provide additional accommodation to Grama Sachivalayam buildings to accommodate health and agriculture units i.e. Rythu Barosa Kendram. Superintending Engineer, PR, Eluru issued administrative sanction orders for further extension of health and agriculture units including the Rythu Barosa Kendram in Jatlapalem village of Pentapadu Mandal. Gram Panchayat, Jatlapalem village proposed an extent of Ac.0-06 cents out of total Ac.2-71 cents in R.S.No.86 of Jatlapalem village for construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram as it is suitable for construction of building. Gram Panchayat, Jatlapalem handed over the proposed land to Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj. Engineering staff, P.R. started construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram in an extent of Ac.0-06 cents of vacant donka land in R.S.No.86 of Jatlapalem village. Gram Panchayat, Jatlapalem handed over the proposed land to Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj. Engineering staff, P.R. started construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram in an extent of Ac.0-06 cents of vacant donka land in R.S.No.86 of Jatlapalem village. Work is completed up to inter level i.e. up to basement and 14 pillars were raised. a) While the matter stood thus, petitioner’s daughter filed W.P.No.22137 of 2020. Pursuant to the interim order, dated 26.11.2020 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.22137 of 2020, Tahsildar, Pentapadu has issued notices to the petitioner and all concerned vide Roc No.378/2020/DT dated 09.01.2021 calling them to attend enquiry. Neither petitioner nor her daughter attended enquiry on 18.01.2021. Objections raised by petitioner’s daughter were rejected by order, dated 25.01.2021. An extent of Ac.2- 71 cents in R.S.No.86 is classified as “Donka” Poramboke in village accounts-fair land register. Out of the said extent, in Ac.0-15 cents residential houses were constructed. In Ac.0- 15, Rajaka tank is in existence. In Ac.0-02 cents building was constructed and is being utilized by Rajaka community. An extent of Ac.0-03 ½ cents was occupied by petitioner’s daughter and K. Padmavathi. Out of remaining extent of Ac.0-31 cents, only Ac.0-06 cents is proposed for construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram for public purpose and in the interest of all ryoths. b) Petitioner is having Ac.7-69½ cents of Zeroythi land in R.S.Nos.105/6, 75/4, 81/3A etc., of Jatlapalem village of Pentapadu Mandal. Petitioner’s lands are located far away from donka porambok except the land to an extent of Ac.0-77 cents in R.S.No.105/6. c) Rythu Barosa Kendram is running temporarily in existing BC community hall situated in R.S.No.167/2 of Gramakantam. Subject land is classified as donka proamboke and is reserved for common purpose i.e. for use of the entire village. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Sri Y. Soma Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the land in survey No.86 is described as ‘donka poramboke’ in revenue records and hence, construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram in the said land is contrary to Rule 15(4) of the A.P. Board Standing Orders (for short ‘BSO’). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the land in survey No.86 is described as ‘donka poramboke’ in revenue records and hence, construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram in the said land is contrary to Rule 15(4) of the A.P. Board Standing Orders (for short ‘BSO’). He would also submit that all the farmers in the vicinity are using the said passage for ingress and egress and construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram will cause hindrance for ingress or egress. 6. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would contend that Gram Panchayat, Jatlapalem handed over Ac.0-06 cents to revenue authorities to construct Rythu Barosa Kendram. Rythu Barosa Kendram is temporarily being run in BC community hall. He would also submit that BSO 15(4) does not prohibit construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram. The point for consideration is whether rule 15(4) of Board Standing Orders prohibits construction in Donka lands. 7. It is apt to extract BSO 15(4), which reads thus: “(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. (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 landings grounds (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. 8. Rule 15(4) of Board Standing Orders deals with assignment of land and prohibition of assignment of lands of certain category. It is undisputed fact that land in survey No.86 to an extent of Ac.2-71 cents has been described as ‘donka poramboke’ in revenue records. Petitioner possessed land in survey No.105/6 of Jatlapalem village. Though counsel for the petitioner would contend about prohibition as per rule 15(4) of BSO, in fact, a perusal of BSO 15(4) does not indicate such prohibition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the land is being assigned to any individual. Construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram, infact, for community and it will help the farmers in the vicinity. Farmers in the vicinity will make use of the amenities for agricultural activities without disturbing the existing Z.P. Road and road margin. 9. As seen from the counter affidavit out of Ac.2-71 cents in survey No.86, Ac.0-32 cents of land is occupied with residential houses, Rajaka tank and Rajaka building. Ac.0- 03½ cents of land was occupied by petitioner’s daughter and another person. Out of remaining extent, Ac.0-06 cents of land is proposed for construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram for public purpose. 10. In fact, Tahsildar by proceedings in Roc No.378/2020/DT, dated 25.05.2021, conducted enquiry and rejected the objections of petitioner’s daughter, against which petitioner’s daughter filed an appeal. Recording the said submission, W.P.No.22137 of 2020 filed by petitioner’s daughter was closed. 11. Out of remaining extent, Ac.0-06 cents of land is proposed for construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram for public purpose. 10. In fact, Tahsildar by proceedings in Roc No.378/2020/DT, dated 25.05.2021, conducted enquiry and rejected the objections of petitioner’s daughter, against which petitioner’s daughter filed an appeal. Recording the said submission, W.P.No.22137 of 2020 filed by petitioner’s daughter was closed. 11. Since there is no prohibition for construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram as per BSO 15(4) and in fact construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram is to the community and for communal benefit, this Court does not find any illegality in constructing Rythu Barosa Kendram in an extent of Ac.0-06 cents in survey No.86 of Jatlapalem village. There are no merits in the writ petition and writ petition is liable to dismissed. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.