IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 26311 of 2009 Between: J.Venkatram Narsimha Reddy, S/o. J.Srinivas Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No. 26311 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard the counsel. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Transport, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition had taken notice on 03.12.2009 and requested time to get instructions. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy takes notice on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 8. 3. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring inaction of respondents in considering the representing of the petitioner dated 17.04.2003 in pursuance of orders passed by this Court dated 26.02.2003 in W.P.No.5785 of 2000 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of not only of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India as enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India but also constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner for the wrongful deprival of ancestral land situated in Sy.No.23 to an extent of Ac.3-02 guntas at Mahaboobabad Village and Mandal, Warangal District equitably in accordance with the rule of law and pass such other suitable orders. 4. It is stated that the petitioner and his family are the absolute owners of the land to an extent of Ac.3-02 guntas in Sy.No.23 of Mahaboobabad Village and Mandal, Warangal District. 5. It is stated that these lands had also been notified in Gazette No.4 supplement to Part I, dated 13.04.1978. 6. It is further stated that the Government had dropped the acquisition proceedings for the proposals to acquire land in Sy.No.23 vide withdrawal notification in G.O.Rt.No.53, dated 17.01.1980 for the bus depot. 7. It is further stated that the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5785 of 2000, which was disposed of on 26.02.2003. The said writ petition was disposed of as hereunder: “However, in view of the said controversy, the petitioners are given liberty to file a representation before the 4th and 5th respondents, giving all details, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and upon such representation is made, the 4th and 5th respondents are directed to consider the same after conducting due verification of the extent of the land belonging to the petitioners and the extent of land allotted to the APSRTC under G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 21.11.1985, and Memo, dated 02.04.1986, issued by the Government, and communicate their decision to the petitioners. It is made clear that if the petitioners are aggrieved by any such decision arrived and communicated to them by the 4th and 5th respondents, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue such remedies available under law. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.” 8. It is stated that a representation had been made dated 17.04.2003 and despite the petitioner approaching respondent No.2 repeatedly, the same is not being disposed of. 9. In the light of the facts and circumstances, let respondent No.2 consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 17.04.2003, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J December 09, 2009 MD