IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6007 of 2008 Between: 1 Pandrada Arjunudu S/o. Appala Swamy, Male, Hindu R/o. Gadampalem, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Pandrada Samba Murthy S/o. Arjunudu, Male, Hindu R/o. Gandhinagaram, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Pendrada Satyanarayana S/o.Arjunudu, Male Hindu R/o. Gandampalem, Golugonda Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Tahasildar, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer,Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Kandepalli Appanna S/o. Lakshmana @ Lakshmayya, Male, Hindu R/o.Gandhinagaram, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam 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 issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 & 2 in not implementing the orders of resumption passed by the 1st respondent against the 3rd respondent in R.C.No. 251/2007 A dt. 24-8-2007 regarding the agricultural land of 1st petitioner and his mother in an extent of Ac 0- 99 in Sy.No. 296/4 and Ac 0.94 cents in Sy.No. 296/5 totaling Ac 1- 93 cents and Ac 1-01 in Sy.No. 286/2 and Ac 1-01 cent in Sy.285/4 totalailng Ac 2-02 cents stood in the name of his late mother Pandrada Malemma situated iln Gandhi Nagar Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, respectively and also not taking any action for resumption of the residential house situated in the Srungavaram Village of same Mandal and District in an extent of 484 sq. yds in Sy.No. 316 as illegal, arbitrary capricious and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Act 9 of 1977 and consequently to direct the respondents No. 1 & 2 to implement the above orders for agricultural land and also pass orders of resumption regarding the residential house and put the petitioners iln possession of the said land and house from 3rd respondent within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court or to pass any other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.N.(P).ANJANA DEVI, SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Questioning the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in not implementing the resumption orders passed by the 1st respondent against the 3rd respondent in R.C.No.251/2007A, dated 24.8.2007 in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.0.99 cents in S.No.296/4 and Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.296/5 and Ac.1.01 cents in Sy.No.286/2 and Ac.1.01 cents in S.No.286/4 situated at Gandhinagar Village, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and also the residential house situated in the Srungavaram Village of the same Mandal, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioners that the lands and a residential house in question are their joint property and the 3rd respondent in a wrongful manner obtained their signatures on blank papers and had later created the same as agreements of sale and had taken possession of their entire property. It is stated that the lands are assigned lands and, therefore, they reported the matter to respondents 1 and 2 for taking necessary action against the 3rd respondent for resumption of the lands and to put them back in possession of the said property. The grievance of the petitioners is that though after conducting enquiry, respondents 1 and 2 have passed orders resuming the land, have not passed consequential orders putting them in possession of the property and hence this writ petition. Prima facie, the dispute appears to be in between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent. Even according to the petitioners, they have taken some amount from the 3rd respondent and put the properties in question as security for the said amount. As on today, it is not brought to the notice of this Court as to what happened after the resumption orders are passed and whether they have become final. If the petitioners have any grievance for not implementing the resumption orders, they can approach the authorities for taking necessary action. They cannot be permitted to make use of this Court to settle the disputes between themselves and the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J msv Dt.24.3.2008 ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Tahasildar, Nathavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer,Narsipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3. 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad 4. 2CD copies