“On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the petitioner has not impugned Ext.P7 order to the extent it finds that the petitioner had encroached into the puramboke land to an extent of 0.61 Ares. The limited relief prayed for in W.P. (C)No.41396/2016 is for the consideration of the petitioners' application (Exts.P8 and P9) for assignment of the said encroached land, and to keep in abeyance the dispossession steps against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P7 order in the meanwhile. I find, however, that the applications for assignment pertained to puramboke land which is seen described as a water body (thodu), albeit dried up, in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. If that be the case, then by virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah (Dead) as per Legal representatives and Others v. District Collector, Chittoor District and Others [(2019) 4 SCC 500], the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.41396/2016 cannot aspire for an assignment of the said land in his favour. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above clearly indicates that water bodies, including those that are dried up, cannot be the subject matter of an assignment by the State. I, therefore, find no reason to issue any further direction to the respondents in the said writ petition to consider the application for assignment preferred by the petitioner since the said
