IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.23697 of 2009 Between: Ms. Devineni Hymavathi ..... PETITIONER AND The District Collector, the Collectorate Office, Visakhapatnam and another ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. Learned AGP for Revenue takes notice on behalf of respondent No.1, Smt.V. Preeti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of respondent No.2. It is brought to the notice of this court by the counsel representing the petitioner and respondent as well that the similar matters had been disposed of by this court with certain directions and hence, the present Writ Petition also be disposed of considering the lines. 2. Heard Smt.D. Radha Rani, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and Smt.V. Preethi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel. 3. The Writ Petition is filed praying for the relief of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 10-07-2009 for grant of alternate land for the land acquired under Award No.35/87 dated 24-12-1987 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10-07-2009 and pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is stated that the petitioner purchased the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0-76 cents in Sy.No.132/6, 133/4 and 133/5 of Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam mandal and district in the year 1985 which was subjected to land acquisition and an award was passed on 24-12-1987 vide Award No.35/87. It is also stated that the petitioner made a representation on 10-07-2009 to the 2nd respondent and also to the Speial Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Visakhapatnam to grant the alternative land equivalent to her acquired land in the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent. 5. The similar orders made in Writ Petition No.19951 of 2009 and Writ Petition No.20406 of 2009 had been placed before this court. In Writ Petition No.19951 of 2009 this court made following order: “In the light of the facts and circumstances well explained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 10-07-2009 in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.” 6. In the light of the same, this court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition also with the following directions. In the light of the facts and circumstances well explained in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition this court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 10-07-2009 in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J November 4, 2009. Note: Furnish CC by tomorrow. B/o.PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.23697 of 2009 November 4, 2009 Note: Furnish CC by tomorrow. B/o.PN