IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11431 of 2008 Between: ..... PETITIONERS AND .....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.M.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: An extent of Ac.4.13 cents in Sy. No. 335/2B belonging to Sri Lakshminarasimha Swamy Temple, Isuka Darsi Village, Martur Mandal, Ongole, is said to have been acquired by the Government for the purpose of providing house sites. 99 persons were identified as beneficiaries for distribution of the sites. Some persons including petitioners have approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.23256 of 2006 alleging that the identification of the beneficiaries was not properly done. Thereupon, this court passed an order on 13.12.2006 in that writ petition directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole, to conduct an enquiry as to the eligibility of the listed beneficiaries and submit a report to the Joint Collector. In the meanwhile, the petitioners and others filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, aggrieved by the list of same beneficiaries. They also filed Writ Petition No. 9714 of 2008 with a prayer to protect the interest pending disposal of the appeal. The Revenue Divisional Officer – second respondent is said to have caused inspection and arrived at a conclusion that list of 99 beneficiaries already enumerated, is not genuine. Thereupon, the Joint Collector is said to have directed to issue notice and take necessary steps for preparation of a fresh list of 99 beneficiaries. The grievance of the petitioners is that their cases are not being considered. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. As a result of several proceedings that ensued so far, be it in this court or before the concerned authorities, it ultimately emerged that the list of 99 beneficiaries prepared earlier was not proper. The second respondent sought for necessary instructions from the first respondent to distribute the house site pattas to 99 eligible beneficiaries. The petitioners have been making their claim from time to time for being included in the list. The second respondent would be under obligation to consider the claim of the eligible persons including petitioners while preparing the list. The writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioners and other eligible persons whether they figure as parties to several proceedings or not, and distribute patta in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ___________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J. May 29, 2008 MAS/PNV ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies