IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1960 of 2005 Between: Ch. Chinna Rao, S/o. Chinnaiah, Aganampudi R.H. Colony, Pinamadaka Village, Gajuwaka Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not passing order on the representation dated 11-2-2004 of the petitioner for allotment of house sites to the major married persons in Aganampudi R.H. Colony of Pinamadaka Village, Gajuwaka Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri.V.Rajagopal Reddy The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition as well as Sri.V.Rajagopala Reddy, appearing for the respondents. The petitioner claims to be a displaced person, whose land is said have been acquired for the purpose of construction of steel plant. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was paid the compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”). However, it is claimed that the petitioner is entitled for grant of house site in terms of G.O.Ms.No.361 Revenue (L) Department dated 15.04.1989, as amended in G.O.Ms.No.641 Revenue (Assignment-II) Department, dated 03.07.1990. The petitioner claims that the case of the similarly situated persons has been recommended by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam by letters dated 17.02.2004 and 27.10.2004. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the second respondent failed to consider his request for extending the similar benefit and no action has been taken so far on his representation dated 11.02.2004 for allotment of house site. Hence this writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner for grant of house site as claimed by him, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2004 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. __________ 21.01.2005 Note : Furnish C.C in one week. (B/O) sh To 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Special Deputy Collector, (Land Acquisition) Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Two C.Cs to the G.P. for Land Acquisition, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 4 2 CD copies