IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28163 of 2010 Between: D. Sreedhar ..... Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri G. Ramchandra Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri P. Roy Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.28163 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in treating the petitioner’s agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.2.00, Ac.0.14 cents, Ac.0.50 cents and Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/2, 15 and 17 respectively totalling to Ac.3.04 cents of Nakkala Kaluva Kandriga Village, Chillakur Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District, as ceiling surplus land and allotting the same for industrial use, pending his application dated 07.06.2010 before respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri G. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri P. Roy Reddy, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner averred that one Pelleti Venkata Krishna Reddy was the original owner of the abovementioned land, who filed his declaration before respondent No.2. That by order dated 28.06.1977, the Land Reforms Tribunal, respondent No.2, declared that the land held by the declarant is within the ceiling limits. The petitioner averred that the wife of the said Pelleti Venkata Krishna Reddy gifted the land in question to his grand father through gift deed dated 11.05.1970, that after the demise of his grand father, his grand mother succeeded to the said land and that thereafter he traced the title through registered Will dated 18.10.2007 executed by his grand mother in his favour. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the order passed by respondent No.2 that the land in question do not fall within the ceiling limits, the land was wrongly included in the ceiling surplus lands by the revenue department and was handed over to respondent No.3 on 16.08.2010 for utilizing the same for industrial purposes. The petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.2 for re-conveyance of the said land. Through his letter dated 31.10.2010, addressed to the Tahsildar, Gudur/Chillakuru, respondent No.2 requested the former for furnishing the details in order to dispose of the petitioner’s application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner’s application before respondent No.2 is pending, there is no justification for the revenue department to allot the land to respondent No.3. After hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing counsel for respondent No.3, I find some merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If respondent No.2 eventually accepts the petitioner’s request of re-conveyance, the petitioner would be deprived of the land, since the same has already been handed over to respondent No.3. To balance the interests of the parties, respondent No.3 is directed not to create third party interest over the land in question till disposal of the petitioner’s application by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the petitioner’s application, after due enquiry, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.35921 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 12.11.2010 ES