IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 10024 of 2008 Between: 1 G. Malleswari W/o. Nageswara Rao R/o. 45-1-9/1, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 B. Sunita, D/o. Nageswara Rao R/o. 45-1-9/1, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 N. Naga Malleswari W/o. Late N. Narasimha Rao R/o. 45-1-9/1, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4 B.V.L. Annapurna D/o. Late N. Narasimha Rao R/o. 45-1-9/1, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2 The Sub Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vijayawada (Urban) Mandal, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....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 a writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner herein from the land admeasuring 312 sq. yards situated in S.No.244 (H.No.45-1-9), Gundala, Vijayawada, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein from the said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.V.SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 10024 of 2008 Order: The petitioners state that they occupied Government Poramboke land in an extent of 312 Sq. Yards situated in Survey No. 244 of Gunadala, Vijayawada, Krishna District, raised a small house and started living therein. They state that pursuant to issuance of G.O. Ms. No. 508, Revenue (Asn.I) Department, dated 20.10.1995, they made a representation dated 27.12.2000 for regularization of the land in question in their favour, and when the respondents, without considering their representation and without following the due process of law, tried to dispossess them from the land in question, they filed W.P. No. 23487 of 2001, and this Court, by order dated 15.11.2007, disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the application/representation of the petitioners submitted on 27.12.2000 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, and also further directed that till such time, the land in question shall not be assigned to any third parties. According to the petitioners, in spite of specific directions of this Court, the respondents neither considered their representation nor passed any orders thereon so far. While so, the Government has issued another G.O. Ms. No. 166, dated 16.02.2008 for regularization of the encroachments and the last date for such regularizations is available up to 30th June 2008. Now it is the case of the petitioners that despite this Court directing the disposal of the representation made by them earlier, and without passing any orders thereon, the respondents are now trying to dispossess them from the land in question. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Since the representation of the petitioners is said to be still pending consideration before the respondents, and since there is already a direction by this Court to dispose of the same, and since it is the case of the petitioners that without passing any orders thereon, the respondents are seeking to dispossess them from the land in question, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The respondents, as directed by this Court earlier, shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, if not already passed, and until then, they cannot be allowed to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question. Therefore, until disposal of the representation of the petitioners, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 01.05.2008 Note: Issue CC today. (B/O) Ksr/Nsr