IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 24867 of 2008 Between: Epuri Venkatarama Raju S/o Narayana Raju, Gandhi Road Anapuri E.G Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector E.G District Kakinada 2 The Govt of A.P ITDA Rampachodavaram E.G District Rep.by its Project Officer 3 The Tahasildar Rampachodavaram(M) E.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 will be pleased to Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.V.R.RUDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in not settling his claim in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.92, 97 and 100/3 of K.Yerrapalem Village, Rampachaodavaram Mandal, East Godavari District in spite of the orders of this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the subject matter of land through registered sale deed on 12.5.1953 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. When the Deputy Tahsildar, Rampachodavaram initiated proceedings against him under Regulation 1/1959 and tried to evict him from the said land, he approached various authorities and fought the litigation and ultimately this Court in W.P.No.12709 of 1988 held that the sale of the subject matter of property in favour of the petitioner is not hit by Regulation 1/1959 and accordingly, the orders passed against him by the Agent to the Government and the Special Deputy Collector are set aside. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said orders of this Court and the repeated representations made by him, the respondents have not delivered possession of the land to him and, therefore, he ﬁled CC No.84 of 1999. In order to escape from the contempt, the respondents have obtained a receipt from him to the eﬀect that possession was handed over to him, though on ground no possession was delivered to him. Thereafter, the respondents insisted him to make a representation intending to sell the said land to the government on payment of compensation, pursuant to which he made a representation to the 2nd respondent. In response to the same, the 2nd respondent issued notice on 2.5.2001 directing him to appear before him with all the documents in respect of the land and thereafter there was no progress in the matter. Hence, he ﬁled the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the respondents to settle his case. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner purchased the subject matter of land under registered sale deed in the year 1955 and when the authorities tried to evict him from the said land on the ground that he is a non-tribal and that the sale is hit by the provisions of Regulation 1 of 1959, the petitioner fought the litigation at various levels and ultimately this court in W.P.No.12709 of 1988 held that the sale in favour of the petitioner is not hit by section 3 of Regulation 1 of 1959 and the orders passed by the Agent to the Government and the Special Deputy Collector were quashed. The said judgment has become ﬁnal. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for possession of the subject matter of land. The petitioner has also ﬁled WPMP No. 32466 of 2008 seeking a direction to the respondents to decide his claim pursuant to his representations dated 23.6.2001, 28.7.2007 and 1.9.2008. The learned Government Pleader submits that since the petitioner has already submitted his representation seeking settlement of his claim and the same are still pending, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the authorities may be directed to dispose of the representations for which course of action the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner pursuant to his representations dated 23.6.2001, 28.7.2007 and 1.9.2008 in the light of the judgment of this court in W.P.No.12709 of 1988 dated 25.7.1996 expeditiously. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.13.11.2008 msv.