IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10266 of 2008 Between: R. Jayaramaiah S/o Nalaganagaiah r/o Ramanujapalli Village, Chiguruvada Post, Tirupathi Rural mandal, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Revenue Divisional officer, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3 The Thasildar, Tirupathi Rural mandal, Chittoor District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupathi Chittoor district. .....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 inthe nature of Writ of mandamus: declare the inaction onthe part of the 4th respondent in sending his technical opinion pursuant to proceedings of the 3rd respondent vide Roc D/ 104/2008 dt 25-1-2008 amouts to erroneous arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondnet to send his technical opinion about change of classificationof the land in S. No. 119 for an extent of Ac. 21.85 cents situted at Ramanujapalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District and to pass necessaryorder or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.C.KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 10266 of 2008 Oral order: The petitioner claims to be the President of Mahatma Jyothi Rao Phule, Bahujanaseva Sangh Society, Ramanujapalli village, Tirupati. It is his case that its members being landless poor persons, made representations to the 1st respondent, namely the District Collector, Chittoor, to assign house site pattas, and that acting on the said representation, the 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 21.05.2007 directed the 3rd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, to conduct a detailed survey of the land admeasuring Ac.21.85 cents in Sy. No. 119 of Ramanujapalli, Tirupati Rural Mandal, and ssubmit his report. The petitioner states that the 3rd respondent conducted survey and submitted report stating that the land is classified as tank poramboke and at present there is no tank subsisting and that it became defunct long back and that there is some irrigation around the tank. Thereafter, the petitioner states that the 3rd respondent addressed letter dated 25.01.2008 to the 4th respondent, namely the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Tirupati, recommending change of classification of the land and requesting him to give his technical opinion. Now it is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the 3rd respondent called for the technical opinion of the 4th respondent as far back as on 25.01.2008 till date no action thereon had been taken, and because of non-availability of technical opinion of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent is not able to take any action on the representation of the petitioner for assignment of house sites. Hence, the petitioner seeks appropriate directions. Despite ordering notice before admission, and despite granting time to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue to obtain instructions, no instructions are obtained. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: If the 3rd respondent has sought for any technical opinion in respect of change of classification of the land in question, then the 4th respondent shall send the same to the 3rd respondent after taking into consideration the ground realities prevailing on the land in question, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 13th June, 2008. Note: Issue CC today. (B/o) KSR