IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19175 of 2008 Between: Y.Venu Viswanath, S/o. Sriramulu, rep. by his GPA holder Y.S.S Prasad, S/o. Sriramulu, R/o. 8-2-269/19/82, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-33 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Rep by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling At Nampally, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, At Lakdika Pool, Hyderabad. 4 K. Bikshapati Reddy, S/o. K.Nagireddy R/o.C/o. Anjali Gardens, Manikonda, Rajendranagar(M), Ranga Reddy District. 5 K.Anji Reddy, S/o. K.Nagireddy, R/o.C/o. Anjali Gardens, Manikonda, Rajendranagar(M), Ranga Reddy District. 6 M/s Anupama Estates rep.by its Managing Partner Jaya Prasad Raju, Poppalaguda(V), Rajendranagar (M) Ranga Reddy. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ or direction preferably Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in considering the objections dt.28-2- 2008 & 19-8-2008 ﬁled against the application of respondent nos. 4, 5, 6 & others under G.O.Ms.Nos.455-456 dated 29-7-2002 & G.O.Ms.No.747 dt. 18-6-2008 for regularization of the land in Sy.Nos.455 to 460, 460/1 and 460/2 of Puppalaguda (V) and Sy.No.177 of Manikonda(V) Rajendranagar (M) of Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the said G.Os. and consequently direct the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 not to regularize the said land in favour of the respondents Nos. 4,5, & 6. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.19175 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered into an agreement of sale with respondents 4 and 5 in respect of the lands to a total extent of Ac.15.00 gts. in Sy.Nos.455 to 460, 460/1 and 460/2 of Puppalaguda village and Sy.No.177 of Manikonda village of Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and paid full consideration amount, but subsequently, since the respondents 4 and 5 did not execute the sale deed, certain civil suits were ﬁled by him and they are pending before various Civil Courts. While so, he came to know that the respondents 4 to 6 have applied for regularization of the said lands in their favour in terms of G.O.Ms.No.455 and 456 dated 29.07.2002 and G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.06.2008. Thereupon, he ﬁled an objection petition, dated 28.02.2008, before the 2nd respondent- Special Oﬃcer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, disclosing all the relevant facts and requesting not to regularize the subject lands in favour of respondents 4 to 6, as the same would aﬀect his legitimate rights. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken on the said objection petition ﬁled by him and, therefore, he ﬁled another petition on 19.08.2008 before the 2nd respondent, but the same is also not yet considered. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that as on today, no orders of regularization in respect of the subject lands in favour of the unofficial respondents are passed. Since no orders of regularization are passed as on today, as submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, it cannot be said that the objection petition filed by the petitioner would not be considered by the authorities. I am of the opinion that the petitioner approached this Court only on a mere apprehension that the oﬃcial respondents would regularize the subject lands in favour of the unoﬃcial respondents, without considering the objection petition ﬁled by him. In any event, the petitioner is not remediless and, if any orders of regularization are passed in respect of the subject lands, he is always at liberty to challenge the same. In the circumstances, the writ petition is closed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the orders of regularization, if any, to be passed in respect of the subject lands in favour of the unoﬃcial respondents, by ﬁling a fresh writ petition. No order as to costs. _____________ N.V. RAMANA,J 16th October, 2008 IBL