IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12199 of 2009 Between: Chandra Sena Reddy Proddutur S/o.P.Ganga Reddy R/o.H.No.1-2-607/27/5, New No. 483, St.No.7, Lower Tank Bund Road, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad - 500 080. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Dept. Government of Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and Special Chief Secretary to Government, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 4 The Commissioner/Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Narayanaguda, YMCA, Hyderabad. 5 The Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., at Ramakrishna Studio, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondents arrange to updation of Revenue Records, Survey Settlement Records and Registration Records as like as Bank Accounts from time to time and publication of public properties in the District Gazettee after due notice to the interested parties in the lands. Counsel for the Petitioner: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner has suggested certain reformative steps, which the State should take for betterment of administration especially in respect of maintenance of records pertaining to land and several other things. Prayer in the petition is that the State be directed to act as per the suggestions. 2. In our opinion, it is not for this Court to give such a direction to the State. However, looking to the facts of the case, we direct respondent No. 2 to look into the contents of the petition and the representation which had been made by the petitioner to the government authorities earlier, so that, some reformative steps can be taken by the Government for betterment of administration. 3. Certain grievances have also been made with regard to non- implementation of certain statutory provisions. We are sure that after considering the averments made in the petition as well as the representation, respondent No. 2 will do the needful. 4. Registry shall forward a copy of this order along with a complete copy of the petition to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. In view of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 23rd June, 2009 ks