IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9767 of 2002 Between: G. Chandraiah, s/o. Mallaiah, R/o. H.No. 17-1-830/32, Damodram Sanjeevaiah Nagar, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Station Road, Nampally, Hyderabd. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District, Saidabad Mandal, Saidabdad ,Hyderabd Dist 3 The Station House Officer, Kanchanbagh P.S., Hyderabd , at Kanchanbagh, 4 P. Ramanchandraiah, S/o. Mallaiah, R/o. 17-1-380/32, Damodaram Sangeevaiah Nagar, Hyderabd. R. 4 is impleaded as per court order dt.5-9-2002 in WPMP No.17285/02. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, under Art. 226 of the constitution of India, declaring the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 in not disposing of the representation 10.11.95 made by the petitioner, as being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the right to life as enshrined in Arts. 14, 15 and 21 of the constitution of India apart from being opposed to G.O. Ms No. 508 of 95, and consequently direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to consider. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: ---- The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9767 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner allegedly purchased land admeasuring of 50 Sq.yards from Sri P.Ramachandraiah in 1987 and constructed three rooms for residential purpose. It appears, Ramachandraiah was granted housesite patta in 1975. Be that as it is, in 1993, it appears that Ramachandraiah sold a portion of housesite, which was already sold to petitioner. In connection therewith, there was community panchayat and petitioner was compelled to pay an amount of Rs.16,000/- to pattaholder for execution of sale deed. Be that as it is, after the Government came forward with a scheme of regularization and issues orders in G.O.Ms.No.508, petitioner made a representation to first respondent for regularization. In this writ petition, his grievance is that the same has not been disposed of, and therefore, he seeks a direction. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) submits that there is a dispute regarding title in respect of land for which petitioner seeks regularisation. Even if there is a dipsute when an application is filed, the District Collector may cause enquiry by second respondent and pass orders duly communicating the same to petitioner. This Court makes it clear that this order may not be understood as conferring any right on petitioner or directing respondents 1 and 2 to grant regularisation to petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 must conduct a thorough enquiry and pass necessary orders. The writ petition, with the above observations, is disposed of. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) August 07, 2009 YS