THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.12306 of 2010 Date : 8-9-2010 Between: T.Roop Kumar s/o.T.R.Krishna Goud, r/o.1-11-110/98A, Shyamlal Buildings, Begumpet, Secunderabad and another .. Petitioners and The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri S.Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 : A.G.P. for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 36 : Sri Vedula Venkataramana The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.12306 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings dated 6-4-2010 and recommending to respondent No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.91,80,000/- deposited by petitioners for regularization of land admeasuring Ac.7.00 (28,328 sq.mts.) in S.No.1007/A of Kukatpally village, Hyderabad under Urban Land Ceiling proceedings of respondent Nos.3 and 4 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent Nos.3 to 36. Petitioners on the one side and respondent Nos.3 to 36 have been fighting for a sum of Rs.91,80,000/- deposited with respondent No.2 in connection with regularization of land which at the relevant time was covered by the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976. On account of subsequent turn of events, the application for regularization has become abortive. When the issue relating to refund of the amount paid under G.O.Ms.No.455 dated 29-7-2002 arose, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.9159/2009. This court, after a detailed consideration of the respective pleas of the parties in the said Writ Petition, observed as under : “The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the competing claims for refund of Rs.91,80,000/- deposited along with the application dt.30-6-2005 seeking regularization of the schedule land under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.455 dt.29-7-2002. As the amount is pending with the State and thereby causing financial detriment to the rightful claimants, the respondents are directed to expeditiously consider and pass orders on the competing claims, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.” Purporting to follow the aforesaid direction, respondent No.2 appears to have obtained legal opinion from the learned Government Pleader of High Court and submitted his report dated 6-4-2010 to respondent No.1. In the said report respondent No.2 has extracted the legal opinion and requested respondent No.1 to pass appropriate orders. Apprehending that the legal opinion favoured opposite parties, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, the learned Counsel for petitioners, submitted that respondent No.2 has not posted correct facts before the learned Government Pleader which led to the latter giving the above mentioned opinion and that therefore the petitioners have serious apprehension that respondent No.1 will be guided by the said opinion and acting thereon. Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned Senior Counsel, raised objection to the very maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that so far respondent No.1 has not taken any decision and therefore the Writ Petition is wholly premature. Having regard to the direction given by this Court in the previous Writ Petition as noted above, respondent No.1 is bound to consider the competing claims of the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 36 and take a decision and communicate the same. Viewed from this narrow sense, the Writ Petition is premature. But however, the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that there is a likelihood of respondent No.1 being guided by the opinion of the learned Government Pleader, cannot be completely ignored. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned Government Pleader, who gave the legal opinion, was not posted with the fact that the petitioners were not merely G.P.A. holders but also agreement holders, having been created personal interest in the property. In my opinion, respondent No.1 is bound to consider all the aspects including the opinion of the learned Government Pleader. At this stage it is not possible for this court to give any finding as to whether all the facts were placed before the Government or not. Inasmuch as a serious dispute is persisting between the parties, in my opinion, it would be desirable that the Government gives an opportunity of hearing to both the parties in order to see that all the relevant facts are placed before it and a decision is taken thereafter. This may perhaps obviate further litigation as well. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to hear the petitioners and respondents Nos.3 to 36 or their representatives before taking a final decision on the claim for refund of the amount. Respondent No.1 shall issue notices to petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 in representative capacities, receive the material from them and take a decision after hearing the said parties in person or through their representatives. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.15573/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 8-9-2010 AM