IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16697 of 2008 Between: 1 Madala Subba Rao S/o.Late Ramanna Srinivasapuram(V) Jangareddygudem(M) W.G District 2 Vigrahala Koteswara Rao S/o.Papaiah Gangavaram(V) Koyalagudem(M) W.G District 3 Madala Durga Rao S/o.Late Ramanna Srinivasapuram(V) Jangareddygudem(M) W.G District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1The District Collector Eluru,W.G District 2The Revenue Divisional Officer Jangareddygudem,W.G District 3The Tahsildar Buttaigudem(M) W.G District 4Kowasu Chellamma W/o.Chandra Rao Jainavarigudem(V) Buttaigudem(M) W.G District 5Kuram Nagamani W/o.Nageswara Rao, Jainavarigudem(V) Buttaigudem(M) W.G District 6Erapa Nagaratnam W/o.Kanaka Raju Jainavarigudem(V) Buttaigudem(M) W.G District 7Korsa Padma W/o.Murali Jainavarigudem(V) Buttaigudem(M) W.G District 8Chichodi Chilakamma W/o.Sahadevudu Jainavarigudem(V) Buttaigudem(M) W.G District 9Madivi Sujatha W/o.Srinivasa Rao Jainavarigudem(V) Buttaigudem(M) W.G 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 may be pleased to issue order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents 1to 3 in not considering the representation ﬁeld by the petitioners on 01-07-2008 as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of APSALT Regulations 1/59 as amended by 1/70 and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 3 consider the representation dt.01-07- 2008 as per the orders of the SPl.Deputy Collector,Tribal Welfare K.R Puram W.G District in S.R No.554 of 2001 dt.09-07-2003. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.R.K.AMERANDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been ﬁled by the petitioners, who are 3 in number, assailing the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in considering the representation filed by them on 01.07.2008. 2. 1st petitioner claims to be the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1.18 cents comprising R.S.No.64/1E; 2nd petitioner claims to be the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1.59 cents comprising R.S.No.64/1F; and 3rd petitioner claims to be the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1.18 cents comprising R.S.No.64/1D of Jainvarigudem village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. Proceedings have been initiated against them under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (as amended by 1 of 1970) (for short, ‘the Regulation, 1959 as amended by 1 of 1970’). The Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram, conducted enquiry and concluded that the possession of the petitioners is not in contravention of the provisions of the Regulation, 1959 as amended by 1 of 1970, and accordingly, passed orders on 24.12.1996. The order passed by the Special Deputy Collector (TW), K.R.Puram, came to be ﬁnal since the aggrieved parties did not choose to challenge the same. Whileso, the Tahsildar, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District-3rd respondent granted pattas in favour of the respondents 4 to 9. Thereupon, the petitioners submitted a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 on 01.07.2008 to cancel the pattas issued in favour of the respondents 4 to 9. There being no action on their representation, the petitioners approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 01.08.2008. Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare received notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Despite service of notice, the respondents 4 to 9 did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the Regulation, 1959 as amended by 1 of 1970 ended in their favour. Therefore, the question of allotting the lands in their possession to the respondents 4 to 9 by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained. 6. Indisputably, the representation submitted by the petitioners seeking cancellation of the pattas granted by the 3rd respondent in favour of the respondents 4 to 9 is pending consideration with the 2nd respondent. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation, dated 01.07.2008, submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon within four weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this Order. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:26th August, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within 3 days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}