THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.26849 OF 2001 O R D E R This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 and G.O.Ms.No.972 dated 4.12.1998 and not regularizing the possession of the petitioner pertaining to 56 Sq. yards bearing H.No.1-7-658/2/F/1, with two mulgies at Zamistanpur, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the claim of the petitioner by receiving the necessary charges. 2. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he is the absolute owner of premises bearing H.No.1- 7-658/F/2, Ramnagar, Hyderabad admeasuring 148 sq. yards by virtue of registered sale deed bearing document no.319/1972 dated 31.1.1972. At the time of purchase, it was an open plot and by obtaining necessary permission, the petitioner has constructed a residential house with two mulgies and the petitioner has been paying the necessary taxes. While so, the 3rd respondent – The Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad Mandal, Hyderabad filed O.P.No.510/1989 on the file of the Special Tribunal-cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under the provisions of the Land Grabbing Act, alleging that the petitioner has occupied the Government land. The said O.P. was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent – the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad issued notice to the petitioner and challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18126/1998 and the said writ petition was disposed of, directing to avail the alternative remedy available under law. Therefore, the petitioner preferred appeal in LG.A.Sr.No.3112/1998 along with a petition in I.A.No.1206/1998 to condone the delay. The said petition was dismissed on 5.3.1999. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.5701/1999 and the said writ petition was disposed on 14.6.1999 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 with a period of two months and till then status quo was directed to be maintained to the extent of 56 sq. yards, as it is admitted that the rest of the land has already been taken over by the Government. Subsequently, the respondents have disposed of the representation of the petitioner and issued possession certificate-cum- provisional order of allotment vide proceedings in Rc.No.RDO F/3924/2000 dated 22.11.2000. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents issued possession certificate dated 22.11.2000 without considering G.O.Ms.No.508 and G.O.Ms.No.972 and the directions of this court and granted possession certificate only to the extent of 44 sq. yards, by acquiring the rest of the land, where mulgies were constructed by him and leased out to third parties. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondents have regularized the possession of one Mr. R.Satya Narayana who is his neighbour, by collecting the necessary charges as per G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995, but his case was not considered. 5. In the affidavit, he further stated that he filed representation on 11.1.2001 to the 1st respondent to regularize his possession to the rest of the land admeasuring 56 sq. yards, where two mulgies has been existing, by collecting the necessary charges as per G.O.Ms.Nos.508 and 972, but the said representation has not been considered till date. 6. No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. 7. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the premises bearing H.No.1-7-658/F/2, Ramnagar, Hyderabad admeasuring 148 sq. yards by virtue of the sale deed. In the writ petition, though there is reference to the filing of the case before the Land Grabbing Court stating that the petitioner has occupied the Government land, ultimately by virtue of the orders of this court in W.P.No.5701/1999 dated 5.3.1999, directions were issued to the Government to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 within a period of two months and till then status quo was directed to be maintained. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the provisions under G.O.Ms.No.508 and 972, possession certificate was given only to the extent of 44 sq. yards, by acquiring the rest of the land where pucca mulgies were built and leased out to third parties. The further grievance of the petitioner is that in similar circumstances, the respondents have regularized the possession of his neighbor R.Satynarayana as per G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995 by collecting necessary charges. 8. It is to be noticed that G.O.Ms.No.508 Revenue (ASN.I) Department dated 20.10.1995 deals with regularization of encroachments by way of dwelling houses on Government land situate in areas notified as urban in 1991 censes and in Industrial Townships, on payment of market value and G.O.Ms.No.972 Revenue (ASN-I) Department dated 4.12.1998 is a modification to G.O.Ms.No.508 for regularization of encroachments by way of dwelling houses on Government land. 9. In the present case, as the petitioner has lost in land grabbing cases and ultimately by virtue of directions in W.P.No.5701/1999 dated 5.3.1999, his case was directed to be considered for regularization in the light of G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that the possession certificate was given only in respect of 44 sq. yards and the remaining extent of land where pucca mulgies with R.C.C. roof was constructed by him, was not considered as per the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.508 and 972. As stated above, the further case of the petitioner is that in similar circumstances, the Government have regularized the possession of one R.Satyanarayana, who is his neighbour, by collecting charges as per G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20.10.1995. These aspects were not disputed by the respondents by way of filing any counter. Further the petitioner has filed a representation dated 11.1.2001 to the 1st respondent – the District Collector, Hyderabad. The said representation is not considered till date. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, and as it is admitted that the respondents have regularized the possession of the petitioner by granting certificate to an extent of 44 sq. yards, and further as the case of the petitioner is that in similar circumstances, the respondents have regularized the possession of one R.Satyanaraya, who is the neighbour of the petitioner and whose land is adjacent to the property of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The 1st respondent – District Collector, Hyderabad, shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.1.2001 for regularization of remaining extent of 56 sq. yards, where pucca mulgies with R.C.C. roof were constructed at premises bearing H.No.1-7-658/F/2, Ramnagar, Hyderabad, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.508 Revenue (ASN.I) Department dated 20.10.1995 and G.O.Ms.No.972 Revenue (ASN-I) Department dated 4.12.1998 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 11. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS ---------------------------- 23—04—2009