IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 10526 of 2009 Between: S.Venkateswara Rao S/o.S.Satyanarayana R/o. Flat No.1C, Vishal Towers, Navodaya Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the District Collector, Medak District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. 3 The Mandal Surveyor, Ramachandrapuram, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting the survey on the request of the petitioner for his lands situated in Sy.No.191 of Kolluru Village and Sy.No.30 of Osmannagar Village in Ramachandrapuram Mandal in an extent of Acs18.36 guntas as illegal, null arbitrary and against the rules and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION No.10526 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. At the request of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. 3. The petitioner claims to be the purchaser of the land situated in Sy.191 of Kolluru village and Sy. No.30 of Osmannagar village in Ramachandrapuram Mandal in a total extent of Ac.18.36 guntas under registered sale deeds and after mutation of his name in the revenue records, he filed applications dated 30-12-2005 and 07- 01-2007 before the 2nd respondent seeking survey of his land and demarcate the same as per the revenue records, but his application has not been taken up nor the survey is conducted. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, and in view of the fact that the petitioner has already filed an application seeking survey of his land, his application is necessarily required to be considered by the respondents and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ May 28, 2009 Kvr/Amd