IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.19161 of 2011 BETWEEN G. Hari Prasad and two others. ... PETITIONERS AND The District Collector, Chittoor District and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. S. SRIDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Petitioner filed two representations dated 20.02.2010 and 26.03.2011 seeking correction of entries in the revenue records based on the patta granted to them. Petitioners rely upon the proceedings of the Additional Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore in S.R.No.315/11(s)/52 dated 27.11.1962, which refer to the Tahsildar, Venkatagiri, attending the Court in the said Inam enquiry and confirming that the lands in question are old patta Inam lands purchased by the petitioners and in their enjoyment and endorsing no objection for grant of ryotwari joint patta. It is also confirmed that the said lands are mistakenly classified as poramboke by survey and settlement authority. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s representations, this writ petition is filed. 3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein deponent – Tahsildar, Srikalahathi, states in para 8 as under: “I further submit that the then Tahsildar, Venkatagiri has attended before the Addl. Asst. Settlement officer, Nellore to give evidence and he stated before the Settlement Officer that the subject lands are purchased by the ancestors of the petitioners and they are in possession and enjoyment and state ‘no objection’ to grant the Roytwari pattas and also stated that the subject lands are mistakenly classified as ‘Adavi Poramboke’ by the Survey Settlement Authorities, but both the villages i.e., Poli and Bheemavaram are under jurisdiction of Srikalahasthi taluq, therefore, the then Tahsildar has no competence to give evidence in respect of the subject land.” 4. In view of the above, therefore, there should be no impediment for the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representations, referred to above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to consider petitioner’s representations, referred to above, in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 14, 2011 DSK