IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 4543 of 2008 Between: Konda Narsimhulu S/o.Pala Kondaiah, R/o.D.No.1/103,Putlampalle(V) Budayapalle Post, Kadapa Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist Collector Kadapa Dist 2 The Tahasildar,Vallur(M) Kadapa Dist .....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 writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in not passing any orders on the representation Dt 8-6-2006 submitted to the 1st respondent by the writ petitioners as illegal,arbitrary and unconstitutional consequentinal,consequently to direct the 1st respondent to dispose off the representation Dt. 8-6-2006 within 4 weeks and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.S.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.4543 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is misconceived. The singular grievance herein is that the 1st respondent has not acted on the representation of the petitioner dated.08-06-2006. The representation of the petitioner, the translation of which is filed in the writ petition reads as under:- “I am native of Putlampalle. My father worked as village Servant in revenue department during his life time. After my father’s death the then Tahasildar granted me an assignment land. Since then I am cultivating the same under Sy.No.376 extent Ac.4.74 cents situate in Tollagangannagaripalle village and panchayat of Valluru Mandal. Since then I am paying the Kist to the authorities. Recently I took a loan for sheep growing from valluru Bank for Rs.30,000/-. I could not repay the loan due to ill health and financial difficulties. Recently 2 persons by name B.Chandra Sekhara and K.China Venkata Subbaiah of Kadapa offered me to purchase my land. I told them that this is the only land for my livelihood. So late they told me to sell only a part of my land out of Ac.4.74 cents they asked to sell ac.2.74 cents and to retain Ac.2.00. I believed their words and entered into an agreement, by showing the 2.00 kept for me. The period for the agreement is 6 months. After 5 months I daily demanded my sale amount. They wanted me to go to the bank to repay the loan and to later pay the balance and get a deed registered. I believed their words and went to the bank. They took signatures from me on some papers. They asked me to sit out side an they went inside to pay the amount, after some time we all came back. After 2 days I asked for my amount. They were postponing the payment daily. Like wise they postponed for one week. On demand they questioned my identity and necked me out. On enquiry with the, they learnt that Chandrasekhar and Venakta Subbaiah played fraud on me by obtaining my signatures. So the land put to auction by the bank and got purchased the same on the name Chandra Sekhar. When I questioned the bank authorities they told me that I my self gave consent for the sale. I do not know about the auction they informed me that Chandrasekhar and Venkata Subbaiah have repaid the loan amount to the Bank and that I have no any interest. The agreement entered is with me Venkata Subbaiah whereas the land is sold by Bank to a Chandra Sekhar. The auction is a mere fraud. I am enclosing the agreement copy to you. The bank people along with Chandrasekhar and Venkata Subbaiah have played fraud on me and to snatch away my property have created this auction with fraud, as if it sold to Chandrasekhar, this is not true. Therefore the sale is not valid. I am ready to repay the loan amount with penalty. So please take the amount and give back my land to me or else I will suffer a lot. Yours faithfully, K.Narasimhulyu Dt.8-6-2006.” That the 1st respondent has not responded to this representation is the singular grievance in this writ petition, as already stated. As can be seen, the petitioner’s representation dated.08-06-2006 does not spell out any particulars as to when he obtained a loan; from which Bank; what proceedings were initiated on default; when the alleged auction was held by the Bank for the sale of the mortgaged property; on what documents he allegedly made signatures; and what is the nature of the fraud committed by Chandra Sekhar and Venkata Subbaiah. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent is required to act under the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for brevity “the Act”) and is required to restore the property to the petitioner. From the representation of the petitioner dated.08-06-2006 no circumstances warranting action under the provisions of the Act is called for. In response to such a vague and non-specific representation the 1st respondent is not expected to act. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is however at liberty to submit a fresh representation (setting out his specific grievance), to the 1st respondent if so advised. On such a representation being submitted this court is not in doubt the 1st respondent would respond appropriately. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 1st JUNE 2009 *TSNR