IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18050 of 2008 Between: G.Kishan Reddy S/o.Swamy Reddy, Himayathnagar Constituency 205,MS-II Old MLA Qarters, Hyderguda,Hyderabad-500029 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department A.P Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Director-General Vigilance & Enforcement IX Floor BRK Bhavan Near A.P Secretariat, Hyderabad 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Commissioner of Police Cyberabad,Hyderabad 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Chief Commissioner of Lands Administration,Station Road Nampally,Hyderabad 5 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Commissioner Survey and Land Records Narayanguda, Hyderabad 6 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Collector Ranga Reddy District at Lakdikapool,Hyderabad 7 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division Attapur Cross Roads Rajendranagar R.R.Dist. 8 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Tahsildar Serilingampally (M) Ranga Reddy District. 9 Mr.L.Jaya Reddy S/o.Raghava Reddy, H.No.2-95/9/4 Mastan Nagar Guttala Begumpet(V), Serilingampally,Ranga Reddy 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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action on the petitioner's representations dt.05-02-2008& 30/04/2008 and further not taking action as per the Vigilance Report No.155(1472/V&E-DI/2006) dt.07-11-2007 of the Director-General Vigilance& Enforcement as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to take action and resume the Government land from the 9th respondent or his assignees and restore the possession of the Private lands to the owners and Government land to its possession. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation, wherein the petitioner has alleged that the wife of respondent No.9 has made an encroachment on Government land bearing Survey No.62 of Guttala Begumpet village, and yet, the Government authorities have not taken any action for removal of the encroachment. More over, it has been also submitted in para 6 of the affidavit filed in the writ petition that there are several other survey numbers, which have also been encroached upon by some persons, but no action has been taken by the Government authorities thereon. The learned Government Pleader has appeared for the Government authorities and has filed a counter affidavit of 6th respondent-District Collector, Ranga Reddy. Upon hearing the learned advocates and upon perusal of the affidavit as well as the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.6, it is clear that the wife of respondent No.9 has made an encroachment on Government land bearing Survey No.62, situated at Guttala Begumpet Village. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that needful is being done for removal of the encroachment made by the wife of respondent No.9, but an application has been submitted by her for regularization of the encroachment made by her and the matter is pending inquiry. We are sure that the Government authorities shall do the needful as soon as possible either for the purpose of removal of the aforesaid encroachment or for regularization thereof strictly in accordance with law without disregarding public interest. So far as the other lands referred to in para 6 of the affidavit are concerned, it has been submitted by the learned Government Pleader, supported by the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent-Collector that the said lands have not been encroached upon and they have been given either to Housing Board or they are in possession of Government authorities. In the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the fact that the respondent-authorities are taking sufficient steps for removal of the encroachment, in our opinion, the grievance ventilated in the writ petition does not survive. Subject to above direction, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 3rd December 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr