IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT APPEAL No.1814 of 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 1.5.2003 in W.P.No.19962 of 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, East Division, at M.J. Road, Ranga Reddy District. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... APPELLANTS AND Syed Mohammed, S/o. Syed Ali Raza, rep. by GPA Holder Manik Chand, R/o. 3-3-465, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants : G.P. FOR ASSIGNMENT Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY The Court at the admission stage made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice) We do not see any ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, which only directs second respondent to send proposals to the Government for alienation of land in Sy.No.212/3 situated at Turka Yamjal village in favour of the writ petitioner-respondent within six weeks, and on receipt of the proposals, liberty has been reserved to first respondent to pass appropriate orders in the light of similar orders passed in the case of V.Narasimha Reddy and others. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that V.Narasimha Reddy and others had preferred a revision before the Government and the Government had proposed to alienate the land in their favour on payment of market value in relaxation of the orders in G.O. Ms. No.1122, Revenue, dated 29-6-1961 and G.O.Ms.No.1409, Revenue, dated 19-8-1978. The District Collector was asked to submit proposals for alienation of the land. He submits that the respondent-petitioner, instead of filing revision, chose to approach this Court. As such, he can be asked to approach the Government by filing revision. After all, on recommendation to be made by second respondent, the Government has been directed to pass appropriate orders. The order passed by the learned single Judge, in fact, amounts to saying that the Government is free to pass any order on the proposals sent by the District Collector in the light of the order passed in the case of V.Narasimha Reddy and others. There is no force in the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. _________________________ (DEVINDER GUPTA, C.J.) 29th November 2004. _________________________ (G.ROHINI, J.) ARS To 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District at Hyderabad. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy District, East Division, at M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Hayathnagar Mandal, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Two CCs to the G.P. for Assignment, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 6. Two CD copies.