THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27133 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner established an Industrial Training Institute over the land in Survey Nos. 74 and 80 of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District in the year 1991. The adjoining land of Acs.2.82 cents in Survey Nos.80/1B, 80/3C and 80/5 is said to be needed for effective functioning and expansion of the Institute. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents in the year 1994 with a request to alienate the said land of Acs.2.82 cents on payment of costs. The petitioner went on corresponding with the respondents and ultimately, it submitted a detailed representation, dated 20.10.2008, renewing its request. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken thereon. On behalf of the respondents, the Tahsildar, the third respondent herein, filed a counter-affidavit. The fact that the petitioner established the Institute is admitted. It is stated that on the request made by the petitioner, proposals for alienation of Acs.2.82 cents of land were processed to certain extent and they were closed vide proceedings, dated 27.03.1998, on the ground that the petitioner did not furnish the requisite information. Sri B.Mayur Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the alleged inspection said to have been conducted before 1998 was without information to the Institute and a unilateral report was submitted by the third respondent. He contends that even the proceedings, dated 27.03.1998, through which the proposals are said to have dropped, were not communicated. He further contends that the subsequent proposals were not adverted to by the respondents. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that once the proposal was dropped, the question of processing it further does not arise. The petitioner has been making efforts for the past one decade to get the land of Acs.2.82 cents adjoining its Institute alienated in its favour on payment of costs. The petitioner did not receive any response and in that view of the matter, it went on making representations, the latest being the one, dated 20.10.2008. From a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear that the proposals were processed to certain extent and were dropped on 27.03.1998. The only reason mentioned therein is that the petitioner did not furnish certain information. The petitioner claims that it did not receive any communication for furnishing information, much less, the proceedings, through which the proposals were dropped. The counter-affidavit is silent as to the steps taken on the representations made subsequent to 1998. The respondents themselves were of the view that the request made by the petitioner deserves consideration and accordingly processed the proposal to a substantial extent. A vague statement is made to the effect that the petitioner did not furnish the information, which the respondents wanted. Be that as it may, now the respondents can process the application submitted by the petitioner on 20.10.2008 and if they want any further information, they can issue memo disclosing the nature of information. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that respondents 1 to 3 shall consider the request of the petitioner and conclude the action thereon, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.02.2009 kdl