THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.541 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners claim right and interest over the plots in Survey Nos.380 and 381 of Khanojiguda Revenue Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Reference is made to various proceedings that arose under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and the orders passed by this Court as well as the revenue authorities. It is also stated that the layout in respect of the plots was regularised under a scheme evolved by the Government. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the letter, dated 01.10.2009, addressed by the Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal, respondent No.3 herein, to the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, respondent No.4 herein. The letter is to the effect that the lands in various survey numbers including those in Survey Nos.380 and 381 belong to the Government. The petitioners contend that respondent No.3 did not verify the records correctly and on the basis of the said letter, respondent No.4 is not entertaining any application for construction. It is also alleged that the revenue authorities are trying to evict the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. The petitioners assert title in respect of individual plots carved out of Survey Nos.380 and 381. This is not the forum to pronounce upon the title as such. The letter addressed by respondent No.3 to respondent No.4 is not clear as to the provision of law under which it is issued. The effort appears to be to protect the Government land. Assuming that the plots owned by the petitioners are from out of the land owned by the Government, proceedings under the relevant provisions of law have to be initiated. Further, respondent No.4 cannot refuse to entertain the applications for permission, particularly when permission was accorded in favour of some persons owning plots in the same survey number. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that; (a) respondent No.3 or any other revenue officials shall not interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the plots in question, except by initiating proceedings under the relevant provisions of law; and (b) respondent No.4 shall entertain the applications that may be submitted by the petitioners seeking permission to construct, unless they are specifically prohibited under any provision of law and pass appropriate orders thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.03.2011 kdl