HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25312 of 2010 Date : 05.09.2011 Between : Nimmagadda Jayaram. …..Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue (JA-I) Department & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25312 of 2010 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not entering his name in the revenue records in respect of land covered by Sy.No.80, admeasuring 40.11 acres, situated at Hafeezpet village of Ranga Reddy District, inspite of specific directions of the 1st respondent, issued in Memo No.28908/JA-1/2004-1, dated 05.11.2004, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that originally, one Nimmala Veera Mallaiah was the owner and possessor of large extent of land covered by Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet village and the petitioner had purchased an extent of 40 acres from him, vide registered sale deed bearing document No.749 of 1971, dated 09.08.1971. It is stated that the land in Sy.No.80 was the subject matter of litigation before this Court in C.S.No.14 of 1958, in which, a preliminary decree was passed. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though the land is purchased by him and a request is made to mutate his name in the revenue records, no steps are being taken by the respondents to record his name. Counter affidavit is filed by the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal. While denying the various allegations of the petitioner, in paragraph 7 of the counter, it is stated; “I submit that in pursuance of the Memo issued by Collector, Ranga Reddy District No.Lc1/6645/2004, dated 13.12.2004, the petitioner has filed a representation, dated 20.12.2004, before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally. I submit that the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court and filed the present writ petition on 6.10.2010. On the same day, I received a communication from the Government Pleader’s office about filing of the writ petition. Immediately, on the same day I have searched the records available in the office, but I could not trace the original file. Therefore, there is a delay in giving instructions to the learned Government Pleader. I submit that on 11.12.2010 the old file, which was misplaced in the record room, was traced by the clerk concerned and placed it before me. On verification of the records, it is found that the petitioner has been issued a Memo No.B/120/2005, dated …02.2005, by the then Tahsildar, with a request to file the following documents within a week to take further action in the matter. 1. Compromise deed entered by the Receiver-cum-Commissioner and respondents. 2. Link documents if any of the vendor from the pattedar Nawab Himayath Nawab Jung. The office copy of the Memo issued to the petitioner is not available in the file except the note file. In view of this, basing on the note file, now I am serving a copy of Memo, which was downloaded from the office computer. On receipt of reply from the petitioner, the representation of the petitioner will be disposed of”. In view of the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit, it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of issuance of Memo No.B/120/2005, dated …02.2005, by which, the petitioner was asked to file the compromise deed and the link documents, and in view of the same, appropriate directions be issued to consider the claim of the petitioner after complying with the objections raised in Memo No.B/120/2005, dated …02.2005. As much as the petitioner is not insisting for the relief sought for in the writ petition, and in view of his request for disposal of writ petition permitting him to make a representation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to file a representation along with the documents mentioned in Memo No.B/120/2005, dated ….02.2005, within a period of four weeks from today, and if any such representation is made along with the documents, respondents shall consider the same and take appropriate steps in the matter. However, it is made clear that in this writ petition, this Court has not gone into merits and did not express the correctness or otherwise of the title and possession of the petitioner over the land in question. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th September 2011 ajr