IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 14771 of 2008 Between: Duddela Chinna Narayana S/o Bakkaiah R/o Amani Gudipadu Village, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam Dsitrict. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State, rep by District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District. 3 The Tahasildar, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District. 4 Sirasani Kasi Reddy S/o Venkateswra Reddy R/o Regumanupalli Village, Pedaraveedu mandal, Prakasam 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 or direction particularly in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, declaring the inaction of the 1st and 2nd respondents in not taking appropriate action against the 4th respondent pursuant to the representations of the petitioner dated 26-5-2008 as illegal, void and arbitrary and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted patta during the year 1979 for an extent of Ac.4.80 cents of land in Sy.No.1020/9 of Amanigudiapadu Village and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land and he was also issued with a pass book and title deed on 12.1.1995 in respect of the said land by the 3rd respondent – Tahsildar, yerragondapalem, Prakasam District. But, however, the 4th respondent without any right or title occupied the said land stating that the 3rd respondent has issued a patta over the said land in his favour. Therefore, he made representations to the 1st respondent – District Collector as also to the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer on 26.5.2008 bringing to their notice the illegal and highhandedness of the 4th respondent in occupying the said land. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far no action has been taken on the said representations. Hence, this writ petition. Since the petitioner has already submitted representations to the authorities, it is agreed by both the counsel to dispose of the writ petition with appropriate directions to the respondents. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the 2nd respondent – Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and after issuing notice to the 4th respondent and after conducting due enquiry, pass appropriate orders expeditiously. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.14.7.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The State, rep by District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District. 3 The Tahasildar, Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District. 4 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 5 2CD copies