IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15866 of 2008 Between: 1 Mallabathula Rama Chandram S/o Somanna R/o Srinivasapuram, jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 2 Rajanala Peraraju S/o Ganga Raju R/o Srinivasapuram, jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 Bandaru Seethamma W/o Chandra Rao R/o Pattinapalem Village, jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, jangareddygudem, West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Buttaigudem Mandal, Buttaiugdem,West Godavari District. 4 Smt. Thati Mangamma W/o Srinu 5 Smt. Pusam Muttamma w/o Ramulu 6 Smt. Thati papayamma W/o Guttaiah 7 Smt. Sodem Akkamma W/o Rambabu 8 Thati Sita W/o Durga Rao 9 Smt. Thama Rama Lakshmi w/o Rama Rao 10 Smt. thati Lakshmi, W/o nageswara Rao (Respondnets 4 to 10 are R/o Jainvarigudem Villge, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District.) .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not considering the representation ﬁled by the petitioners on 14-06-2008 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of APSALT Regulations 1/59 as amended by 1/70 and consequentially direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 to consider the representation dt 14- 06-2008 as per the orders of the Spl. Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, K.R. Puram W.G. District in S.R. No. 929/9 dt 13-06- 1995 S.r. No. 224/1996 dt 11-04-1997 229/1996 and 443/2001 dt 27-02-2003 and to pass such further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are three in number assailing the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in considering the representation ﬁled by them on 14.06.2008. The ﬁrst petitioner claims to be the owner of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.0.24 cents in R.S.No.20/3, Ac.0.33 cents in R.S.No.20/2B, Ac.1.27 cents in R.S.No.21/1 and Ac.1.56 cents in R.S.No.38/2; second petitioner claims to be the owner of the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.0.24 cents in R.S.No.20/3, Ac.0.33 cents in R.S.No.20/B, Ac.1.27 cents in RS.No.21/1; and third petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands admeasuring Ac.0.24 cents in R.S.No.20/3, Ac.0.33 cents in R.S.No.20/B, Ac.1.27 cents in R.S.NO.21/1 of Jainvarigudem Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godawari District. Proceedings have been initiated for their ejectment on the ground that their possession is in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970. The Special Deputy Collector, conducted enquiry in SR.No.929/9 dated 13.06.1995, S.R.No.224/1996 dated 11.04.1997, and SR.Nos.229/1996 and 443 of 2001 dated 27.02.2003 and concluded that the possession of the petitioners over the lands in dispute is not in contravention of the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970 and accordingly passed orders in favour of the petitioners. The orders passed by the Special Deputy Collector came to be ﬁnal since the aggrieved parties did not choose to challenge the same. While so, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Buttaigudem, had issued pattas in favour of respondents 4 to 10. Thereupon, the petitioners submitted a representation to respondents 1 to 3 on 14.06.2008 for cancellation of pattas issued in favour of respondents 4 to 10. As the said representation remained unattended, the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 6.08.2008. Status quo with regard to the possession of the lands in dispute has been granted on the same day. Despite service of notice, the respondents 4 to 10 did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1/1959, as amended by Regulation 1/1970 ended in their favour. Therefore, the question of allotting the lands to respondents 4 to 9 by the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot be sustained. Indisputably, the representation submitted by the petitioners seeking cancellation of the pattas granted by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer in favour of respondents 4 to 10 is pending for consideration with the second respondent. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representation, dated 14.06.2007, submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 11th September, 2008 Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, jangareddygudem, West Godavari District. 3 The Tahsildar, Buttaigudem Mandal, Buttaiugdem,West Godavari District. 4 2 CCs to G.P. for Social Welfare, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.(OUT) 5 2 CD copies.