IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10404 of 2008 Between: Ali Shmed Siddiqui S/o. Late Mohd. Shafiuddin khan 7-1-45/2, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Office, Chevella Division, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Tahsildar, Rajendranagar mandal, Rangareddy Dist. 3 Acharya N.G Ranga Agricultural University, Rep. by its Registrar, Rajendranagar, R.R.Dist. .....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 order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in not passing any seeking No-Objection for change of Names in the revenue records in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2-11 Gts in Sy.No.266 of Budvel Village of Rajedranagar Mandal, R.R. District as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 04.01.2228 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SARVOTHAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} O R D E R: The petitioner made a representation dated 4.1.2008 to the 3rd respondent-University with a prayer to give necessary consent for incorporation of his name in respect of an extent of Ac.2.11 guntas of land in S.No.266 situated in Budvel village, Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R. District. It was stated that the total extent of the said land is Ac.7.20 guntas and out of it, only Ac.5.09 guntas were acquired for the purpose of 3rd respondent. The petitioner pointed out that though an extent of Ac.5.09 guntas of land was acquired, the University was shown as in possession and the owner in respect of Ac.7.20 guntas of land. It is complained that no action has been taken against the 3rd respondent so far. Heard Sri B.Sarvotham Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition. The subject matter of the complaint is purely a private dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the 3rd respondent on the other hand. It is for the 3rd respondent to react to the representation made by the petitioner in the manner in which it deems fit. The representation cannot be kept pending indefinitely. The further course of action to be pursued by the petitioner depends on the nature of response of the 3rd respondent. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to give necessary reply to the petitioner’s representation dated 4.1.2008 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________ bcj 28.05.2008