THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.2513 OF 2007 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents – revenue authorities in renewing the lease patta issued to the petitioner for the lands situate in R.S.No.242/3, 243/3, G.Vemavaram, I Polavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, and in considering the representation of the petitioner dated 8.1.2007, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he is a landless poor and has occupied the Government land in the above said survey numbers in the year 1977 and eking his livelihood for the last thirty years and he has also been paying the land and water taxes to the Government and the 3rd respondent – The Mandal Revenue Officer, herein issued lease patta by his proceedings dated 26.7.2000 as per the orders of the 1st respondent – the District Collector. The lease will be renewed automatically on receipt of application of the lessee. The petitioner sent application dated 28.3.2005 to the 3rd respondent, who required the petitioner by his endorsement dated 7.4.2005, to send the original lease patta by registered post. On the ground that the land is drain poramboke, the 3rd respondent refused to renew the lease patta for the year 2005-2006. The further case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent renewed the lease and granted eksal patta to other farmers for different extents in Sy.Nos.240, 241, 244/3 and 241, but denied the said benefit to him. Hence, he made a representation on 8.1.2007, but the said representation was not considered till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The 3rd respondent – Mandal Revenue Officer filed counter and the tenor of which is that the original lease patta was itself cancelled and the subject land is classified as ‘drain poramboke’, highly objectionable for assignment and the other survey numbers in which the pattas were granted, were also cancelled and the same is now vested in the Government and the petitioner earlier filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.161/2002 and this court by order dated 3.1.2002 directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 27.3.2001 and accordingly his application was considered and orders were passed by the 3rd respondent in Ref.No.B/21/2000 dated 13.5.2003 to the effect that the drain poramboke cannot be leased and when a contempt case was filed, the same was also closed and further the matter was referred to A. P. State Commission for SC and STs. The matter was again re-examined and orders dated 17.7.2005 were passed stating that no lease can be granted for the land classified as ‘drain poramboke’. It is also stated that the petitioner is not in possession of the land in question. 5. From the above averments it could be seen that the petitioner was earlier granted lese for the subject land and the same was canceled on the ground that the land is classified as ‘drain poramboke’. In the writ petition, the petitioner alleges that he has sent the original patta and the same is with the 3rd respondent and he also made representation dated 8.1.2007. Though the counter states that renewal of lease cannot be granted, but no orders were passed on the representation dated 8.1.2007, in accordance with law. Therefore, suffice it to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: “The respondent shall consider the representation of the petitioner dated 8.1.2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and till then, if the petitioner is in possession, status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the representation.” 6. No order as to costs. AVS ----------------------------------- 14—10—2009