IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5057 of 2009 Between: Peethala Raghavulu & others. ..... Petitioners AND The Joint Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri N. Siva Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5057 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 20.07.2006 passed by respondent No.1, whereby while confirming order dated 20.05.2004 of respondent No.2, he has directed to identify alternate land of Ac.1.50 cents to each of the petitioners in lieu of the DKT lands, which were found unfit for cultivation. It is further directed that the ‘D’ Form pattas shall be cancelled as soon as the alternate land is identified and assigned to the petitioners. At the hearing, Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that even though the petitioners have filed the present writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order of respondent No.1, he has stated that even to the extent of the direction given by respondent No.1, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not been implementing the same. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in R.S.No.5/17 of Utharankanchi Village was identified for each of the petitioners and notice dated 21.09.2008 to that effect was issued directing them to appear before respondent No.3 on 25.09.2008 for receiving pattas and that as the petitioners failed to respond to the said notice, another notice dated 03.10.2008 was issued asking them to appear before respondent No.3 on 04.10.2008. It is further stated that on 04.10.2008 the petitioners have requested for sometime to consider the matter and that thereafter they have not turned up despite another notice dated 28.01.2009 having been issued to them. It is further averred that in view of un- cooperative attitude of the petitioners, respondent No.2 was requested to cancel the pattas in terms of the direction of respondent No.1. In my opinion, as admittedly the lands for which DKT pattas were granted to the petitioners are not cultivable and that in respect of major portions of those lands quarry lease was granted in favour of the impleaded respondent, no exception can be taken to the order passed by respondent No.1. However, as the petitioners have raised the grievance that even the direction given by respondent No.1 has not been complied with, they are permitted to appear before respondent No.3, who shall take steps to ensure that the order of respondent No.1 is implemented by identifying appropriate lands and assigning the same to the petitioners in lieu of the lands covered by the DKT pattas, which have been cancelled by respondent No.2. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.6609 of 2009 and WVMP.No.1125 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.11.2010 ES