THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7950 of 2011 Dated 25th March, 2011 Between: Smt. R.J.Meena kumari …Petitioner And The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 6 to delete the petitioner’s patta land admeasuring Acs.2.41 cents in survey No.497-3 of K.Locherla Village, Kothacheruvu Mandal, Anantapur District, from Annexure-III relating to prohibitive register prepared under Section 22-A (1)(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’). I have heard Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments. The petitioner claims to have purchased the abovementioned extent of land out of total extent of Acs.27.22 cents in survey No.497-3 under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.2007. She averred that pattadar passbook was issued by respondent No.5 to her and that she has been in possession of the said property. When the petitioner is stated to have approached respondent No. 6 for sale of the land, he has refused to receive the same on the ground that the said land is included in Annexure-III of the list submitted by the Endowments Department under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that on her representation, respondent No.5 requested respondent No.4 to enquire and report and that the latter vide his report dated 04.09.2010 addressed to respondent No.5 opined that the land in survey No.479 is erroneously shown as 497 in the list communicated to the Sub-Registrar, Bukkapatnam, and therefore, he recommended that there can be no objection for giving ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land in survey No. 497-3. On receipt of the said report, respondent No.5 is stated to have addressed a letter bearing Roc.No.46/2010 dated 14.09.2010 to respondent No.1, wherein while referring to the report of respondent No.4, he requested respondent No.1 to issue necessary directions for deletion of survey No. 497-3 admeasuring Acs.27.22 cents from Annexure-III of the list communicated to respondent No.6 under Section 22-A(1)(c) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the lapse of more than six months, respondent No.1 has not taken any action so far. In support of the averments referred to above, the petitioner has filed copies of the report of respondent No.4 and the letter addressed by respondent No.5 to respondent No.1. In my opinion, if the survey number was wrongly mentioned in the prohibitive register as opined by respondent No.4, there is no justification for not correcting the said mistake. Any inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in getting this mistake corrected would undoubtedly cause serious prejudice to the interests of the petitioner. In the light of the above facts, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the letter dated 14.09.2010 addressed by respondent No.5, take appropriate decision on the deletion of the land in question from the prohibitive register and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9871 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th March, 2011 GHN