IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28772 of 2008 Between: Dr. P. Nagabhushanam S/o. Late P. Arjun Rao, Hindu R/o. H.No. 3-51/1, Balanagar (Presently) Residing at Film Nagar, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER AND The General Manager, South Central Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. ....RESPONDENT 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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the inaction on the part of the respondent in considering the case of the petitioner for amicable settlement with regard to the land dispute between the petitioner and respondent Railways i.e, admeasuring 2846 sq. yards situated in Sy.No. 247 and 249 of Khairatabad, Hyderabad is highly illegal, improper unjust, arbitrary and violation of Art. 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and as a consequential direction direct the respondent to consider the representation dt. 24-12-2008 and take appropriate decision within the reasonable time not beyond 4 weeks and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.GANDURI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28772 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner herein claims to be in possession of 2846 square yards of land situated in Sy.No.247 and 249 of Khairatabad, Hyderabad. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondent in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 24.12.2008 for amicable settlement with regard to the land dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-South Central Railway, Secunderabad, as arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel Sri P.Ganga Rami Reddy appearing for the respondents. This Court while issuing notice, by order dated 30.12.2008 directed the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 24.12.2008. As no order was passed, the petitioner states that he made a further representation dated 24.2.2009 expressing his willingness for a joint survey of the land by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records. The petitioner also stated that he is ready to bear all the costs for conducting such a joint survey and that he would abide by the outcome of such survey. The material placed before this Court shows that the said representation was received in the office of the respondent on 2.3.2009. In the circumstances, it is for the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24.2.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J Dt.23-06-2009 RAR THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 28772 of 2008 DATED :23-06-2009