IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9661 of 2008 Between: Padavala Mutyala Rao S/o. Narayana Murthy W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahasildar, Bhimavaram Mandal, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 2 Bhgireddy Venkateswara Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Dirusumarru, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. .....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, order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering petitioners representation dated 09.10.2007 pending before the 1st respondent is illegal and also making preparations to grant patta in favour of the 2nd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.N.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 9661 of 2008 Order: The petitioner states that he was granted D Form patta in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1.04 cents situated in Survey No.795/1 of Vempa village, Bhimavaram mandal, West Godavari District, in the year 1978, and since then he has been cultivating the said land. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that when the 2nd respondent illegally taken away his patta, and trying to get the said land transferred in his name with the help of the 1st respondent, he made a representation dated 09.10.2007 requesting the 1st respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, to enquire into the matter and take necessary action, but so far no action thereon had been taken. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and both of them agreed for disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: Respondent No.1, namely the Tahsildar, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 09.10.2007 of the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 29.04.2008 Ksr/Nsr