THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.25611 of 2011 Date: 14.11.2011 Between : S. Chandra Babu and others. … Petitioners and Government of A.P., rep. by its Secretary (Endowments), Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.25611 of 2011 ORDER : Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5, and Sri D.V. Sasidhar, counsel representing Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.6-Mutt, and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners claim to be in possession of certain extents of land situated in Sy.No.310/B1 and 310/B2 of Maruthinagar, M.R.Palli, Near West Church Compound, Tirupati, Chittoor District. They claim to have purchased the said extents under registered sale deeds on the bonafide impression that the said land is private patta land. They also constructed pucca buildings and have been residing there. However, the 6th respondent-Mutt claims the said land as endowment property and filed Original Applications in O.A.No.69 of 2011 and batch before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, Hyderabad, for eviction of the petitioners. The petitioners state that even though they are the bonafide purchasers, in order to avoid litigation, they submitted representation dated 27.1.2009 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 expressing their willingness to purchase the said land and the said representation is still pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the 6th respondent-Mutt, which has filed the O.As., is insisting for disposal of the said O.As. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings in the said O.As. as arbitrary and illegal. 3. Even though the petitioners have sought to declare the proceedings in O.A.No.69 of 2011 and batch pending before the Tribunal as arbitrary and illegal, learned counsel for the petitioners does not pursue the said relief, instead submits that a direction be issued to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, to consider the representation dated 27.1.2009 and take appropriate decision. Learned counsel submits that if the said representation is not considered and decided, the petitioners would suffer great hardship while facing proceedings in the said O.As. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that they have no objection for issuing such a direction. However, it is represented that a copy of the representation dated 27.1.2009, which is said to have been submitted by the petitioners is not immediately traceable and hence the petitioners be directed to submit a fresh representation along with relevant material. 5. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, while declining to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit a fresh representation along with relevant material to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, on such representation being filed, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and take appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is made clear that it is for the 2nd respondent to take a decision; and which shall be in the interest of the institution. Till disposal of the said representation by the 2nd respondent, status quo obtaining as on today in all respects shall be maintained by both the parties. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 14.11.2011. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.25611 of 2011 14.11.2011 (Msr)