HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28455 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in not granting permission to cut the teak trees situated in the patta lands of the petitioner in Rajavommangi village and Mandal, East Godavari District, inspite of the representation of the petitioner from time to time made to the respondents, as illegal and, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for cutting of the teack trees situated in the said lands of the petitioner. 2. Heard. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is the owner of the land to an extent of Ac.2.70 cents in Sy.No.220/3 and A.C.8.49 cents in Sy.No.221 situated in Rajavommangi village and Mandal, East Godavari District; that about 35 teak plants were planted in the said lands about 40 years back; that the petitioner has applied to the respondents seeking permission to cut the teak trees situated in his patta land; subsequently the petitioner again made representation on 27.8.2005 to the respondents with a request to grant permission to cut the teak trees; that the 1st respondent called for information from the 2nd respondent with regard to the request of the petitioner for cutting and transit of teak trees situated in his land; that the 2nd respondent in pursuance of the memo of the 1st respondent visited the land of the petitioner and measured the trees; that finally the petitioner made another representation on 21.9.2011 to the 1st respondent to consider his request for cutting of teak trees, but the respondents failed to take any action and hence he filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though three representations are pending with the respondents for according permission to cut the teak tress, the respondents failed to take any action and hence a direction may be given to the respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioner. 5. On perusal of the entire material available on record, it is evident that the 3rd respondent has addressed a letter to the 1st respondent to send the proposals along with the report for taking further action on the representations of the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued a memo to the 2nd respondent to value the trees and also inform the purpose for which the petitioner requires the cutting permission. In pursuance thereof a report has been submitted by the 1st respondent to the District Collector (4th respondent). Therefore, the 4th respondent District Collector has to take appropriate decision in this regard in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent-District Collector, to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, on the report submitted by the 1st respondent, within two months, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 14.11.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28455 OF 2011 Date:14.11.2011 Gk.