IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16387 of 2010 Between: Kanakam Ramakrishna ..... Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam Revenue Division, Wyra Road, Khammam & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Jagadhishwar Reddy Counsel for the respondents : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16387 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 26.08.2009 for grant of Section 38(E) certificate under the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act”) read with A.P. (Telangana Area) Protected Tenants (Transfer Ownership of Lands) Rules, 1973 (for short, “the Rules”), as illegal and arbitrary. Though notice was issued as far back as 12.07.2010, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has not reported instructions. In his affidavit, the petitioner has pleaded that his grand father by name Kanakam Venkaiah was a protected tenant in respect of Ac.1.31 guntas in Sy.No.165 and Ac.2.20 guntas in Sy.No.166 of Khammam Revenue Village and Mandal and was in possession of the said property prior to the Act coming into force and that as such he was granted protected tenancy certificate on 28.05.1951 under Sections 35 and 37 of the Act. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that the then Tahsildar has entered his grand father’s name in final agricultural tenancy records Parts I and II of Form No.5 and copies of the said certificates, pahanies etc., were submitted before respondent No.2 and that after the death of his grand father, his grand mother and his father used to cultivate the lands till his father’s demise on 26.08.2000. The petitioner claims to be the only legitimate descendant in respect of the abovementioned property and that he made a representation on 26.08.2009 for issuance of ownership certificate under Section 38(E) of the Act read with the Rules. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has not been disposing of the said representation for granting ownership certificate. As the abovementioned facts have remained uncontroverted, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the revenue records, pass appropriate orders thereon and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.20642 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.10.2010 ES