IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 570 of 2009 Between: L. Narsimha Reddy S/o. Late L. Veera Reddy R/o. Bachuguda Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Secretary Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Medak at Sangareddy. .....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 to issue a writ or a direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the respondents dated 31- 12-2005 is causing hardship to the general public to enforce the amendments under the Record of Rights in pattadar Pass Books Act 1971. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.C.FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein the circular dated 31- 12-2005 issued by the office of the District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy, has been challenged by the petitioner. It was brought to the notice of the Government authorities that very often expensive lands of Government and private authorities were being transferred in an improper and illegal manner and, therefore, by virtue of the above circular, the District Collector, Medak at Sangareddy, has issued the guidelines which are to be followed before affecting any entry in the revenue records. The petitioner has been aggrieved by the said circular. We have considered the contents of the circular and we are of the view that the said circular is in the interest of people at large, because before affecting any entry in the revenue records certain care is required to be taken by the revenue authorities and if any guidelines are issued, whereby the revenue authorities are asked to be more careful and more vigilant, in our opinion, there is nothing wrong in the said circular. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.10040 of 2007 on the subject matter of this writ petition, as he was adversely affected because of the said circular. Possibly, he filed the present petition simply because he did not get any interim relief in the aforestated petition filed by him. We do not see any substance in the petition and, therefore, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 21st January, 2009 CVRK/GRR