THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.17004 of 2007 Date: 15-10-2009 Between: L.Chennakeshav … Petitioner And The District Collector, Hyderabad and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.17004 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing of the representation/appeal dated 16.04.2005 and in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing H.No.6-2- 113/1/1/A (New), H.No.6-2-113/3/1 (old), Bokkalaguda, Secunderabad with all consequential benefits, as arbitrary illegal, unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question to an extent of 212 square yards and further direct the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 16.04.2005 made by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the said property ever since from the date of his purchase from one K. Vishwanath vide sale deed document No.35 of 2003 dated 09.01.2003 to an extent of 212 square yards, from out of total land to an extent of 505 square yards. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, came to the site along with demolishing squad and attempted to demolish the existing room without following the procedure laid down under the rules and even without giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. When the same has been questioned, the revenue authorities have, orally, informed that the piece of land purchased by him belongs to the ‘G’ Abadi land. It is also submitted that the revenue authorities did not interfere with the other peace of land, which is constructed on the land admeasuring 293 square yards by the other persons, which is part and parcel of total extent of land. Under those circumstances, the petitioner explained the facts, by producing link documentary evidence for the last 53 years, how he became the owner of the property in question to the 2nd respondent and requested not to demolish the existing structure. The 2nd respondent after considering his request, informed him to file a petition before the 1st respondent, District Collector, to prove his title and possession over the property in question. Accordingly, he made a representation to the 1st respondent brining all the facts and circumstances to the notice of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has not passed any orders on various representations filed by the petitioner. Subsequently, he also filed an appeal/representation on 16.04.2005 before the 1st respondent narrating all the aforesaid facts and circumstances with a request to call for records pertaining to the property in question and alternatively requested the 1st respondent to consider for regularization of the same in terms of the various Government orders taking into account the fact that for the last 53 years the land is in possession of the private parties and not by the Government. But the 1st respondent did not pass any orders on the said appeal. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, counter has been filed, inter alia, submitted that the land in question is classified as ‘G’ Abadi as per the TSLR particulars, hence, the claiming the right over the land does not arise. Mere obtaining the municipal number does not confer any right to claim title over the property in question. Eventually, it is submitted that the petitioner applied for regularization under G.O.Ms. No.166, dated 16.02.2008 and the same is under process. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. From the above, it is obvious that the petitioner is claiming right over the property in question and the respondents’ stand is that the land in question is classified as ‘G’ Abadi land. Admittedly, the petitioner made an appeal/representation dated 16.04.2005 to the 1st respondent and the same is under process. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 16.04.2005, stated to have been made by the petitioner, 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. Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 15.10.2009 LSK