IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :5473 of 2006 Between: Smt.Jamma Devi Bajaj and another ..... PETITIONERs AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemanapally Mandal, And two others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.5473 of 2006 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representations dated 1.2.2004 and 9.2.2004 as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to dispose of the representations according to law by dividing the lands situated in Mulkalpet village and Kalmalpet village in Vemanapalli Mandal in equal shares in the names of successors of late Sri Seetaram Bajaj as per the partition deed dated 2.9.1954 and to pass such other orders. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 1st petitioner is the daughter-in-law of late Sri Seetaram Bajaj and during his life time he has acquired vast properties in different mandals viz., Jaipur, Chinnoor, Vemanapalli, Kotipalli in Adilabad District. The said Seetaram Bajaj has three sons viz., Ramkumar, Ramratan @ Bhanwarilal, Ghanshyamdas. During his life time, he bequeathed a partition deed dated 2.9.1954, dividing all his properties between the family members. The husband of the 1st petitioner was expired before the division of the properties in the year 1954. The 2nd petitioner is the eldest son of Sri Ramkumar Bajaj. His father also expired in the year 1967 leaving his mother (died in the year 1978) and three sons as successors. As per the partition deed, his grand father has left over some properties of lands situated in different villages in Vemanapalli Mandal himself for his self-use. Later after the death of the grand father in the year 1974, the petitioners have given number of representations to the authorities to divide the lands in equal shares between all the family members ie., 33% to Ramkumar, 33% Ramratan and 33% to Ghanshyam Das. As on today, though all the properties vested in the name of his grand father, they were distributed between the family members and are being enjoyed by the respective share- holders. However, since the names of the successors were not mutated in the revenue records, the petitioners submitted representations dated 1.2.2004 and 9.2.2004 requesting the respondent to mutate the names of the successors as per partition deed, but no action has been taken by the respondent. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that if the representation stated to have been submitted by the petitioners is not disposed of so far, let the authorities be directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 4. Having regard to the averments made by the petitioners and in view of the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 5. The respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the representations dated 1.2.2004 and 9.2.2004 said to have been submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if the said representations are still pending and not disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 24th September, 2009 PNV