Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed a common counter affidavit, whereas respondent No.5 filed a separate counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4, it is stated that the land in T.S.No.4049 admeasuring Acs.19.00 is classified as “Kunta” poramboke locally known as “Thataiah Gunta”. Large number of Colonies known as Chinna Gangammagudi Colony, Vinayakanagar Colony, Korlagunta, have come up in the area. There are also Government Offices belonging to the fifth respondent, Veterinary Hospital. An extent of Ac.1.50 cents was allotted to the fifth respondent i.e., Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA), and an extent of Ac.0.49 cents of land is under the possession and enjoyment of one Smt.B.Lakshmidevamma in which a juice factory has come up. It is alleged that the petitioner with a view to grab the Government land, started construction over night, and apprehending action by the revenue authorities, filed the present writ petition. The petitioners produced house site patta granted to the first petitioner in Chinna Gangammagudi Colony in T.S.No.4049. To ascertain the facts, the second petitioner was summoned to the Office of the Mandal Revenue Officer. She appeared on 04.10.1999 and gave a statement to the effect that the first petitioner transferred the house site in her favour by way of gift. The second petitioner was not granted any patta in her individual capacity and the gift made by the first petitioner is violative of Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further stated that the first petitioner was granted patta on 24.12.1992 in Chinnagangamma temple Colony located on the other side of TUDA Office complex and opposite to Gangamma temple. But, the first petitioner illegally occupied the other land, which was not allotted to her. Therefore, the allegations made by the petitioners are denied. It is further stated that the second petitioner is the wife of the Ex-Village Administrative Officer of Tirupati, and she owns properties at Panakam Village, Tirupati (Rural) Mandal, and she is not a landless poor person. As the first petitioner has violated the conditions of assignment, necessary action is being initiated for cancellation of assignment.
