IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22012 of 2008 Between: J.M.Dev. Dutt S/o. J.M Ashok Dutt H.No.5-2-27 Hyderabasti,Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Government of A.P rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Secretariat,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not disposing oﬀ representation dt 21-07-2008 submitted by the petitioner inspite of repeated visits as illegal and arbitrary and consequetly direct the respondent to take appropriate steps on the representation dt 21-7-2008 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : O r d e r: This Writ Petition has been ﬁled by the petitioner assailing the action of respondent in not considering his representation dated 21.7.2008. The respondent has taken possession of the land owned by the mother and father of the petitioner for road widening from Malakpet to Dilsukhnagar in the year 1984. As the respondent failed to pay the compensation, the petitioner and his father ﬁled W.P.No.8794 of 1988, which came to be disposed of on 2.1.1988 directing the respondent to initiate proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. When the respondent failed to initiate Land Acquisition proceedings, C.C.No.2109 of 1988 came to be ﬁled. Pending contempt case, proceedings under Land Acquisition Act came to be initiated in respect of 3560 square yards. Though notiﬁcation under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued, acquisition proceedings remained static. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation-dated 21.7.2008. There being no action on the representation, he approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When this writ petition came up for admission learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration received notice on behalf of respondent. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not considered his representation-dated 21.7.2008. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.7.2008 and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16th October 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy, J) tnb ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO.22012 OF 2008 16T H OCTOBER, 2008