THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3938 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a co-operative house building society. Its members have purchased different extents of land in Survey No.129/34/1 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. There existed some dispute as to the ownership of the property and the Government asserted that the land belongs to it. In the recent past, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, providing for regularization of encroachments over the Government property. The guidelines for processing the applications are stipulated. The District Level Committee, 2nd respondent herein is prescribed as the authority to receive and process the applications to a substantial extent. With a view to avail the benefit under the G.O., the petitioner and its members have submitted applications before the District Level Committee, 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner and its members based their claims on the sale deeds as well as certain orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.1118 of 1996. The 2nd respondent however refused to forward the application of the petitioner to the Government on the ground that the documentary evidence produced by it cannot be considered as adequate under G.O.Ms.No.166 and the same was noted in the minutes of the 2nd respondent dated 20.01.2009. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard Sri S.R.Ashok, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The application submitted by the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166 was withheld at the threshold level on the ground that the evidence produced by it is not adequate. On its part, the petitioner has enclosed the relevant documents. In case, the 2nd respondent felt that some more evidence is needed, it ought to have informed the petitioner of the same. In such an event, the petitioner could have made an endeavour to satisfy the 2nd respondent, in case adequate material existed with it. Refusing to forward the application on the ground that the evidence is not adequate, without hearing the petitioner, cannot be said to be proper exercise. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to furnish any further material in its possession or to bring to the notice of the 2nd respondent, any directions issued by this Court in this regard; and as and when such material is furnished, the 2nd respondent shall take the same into account and pass fresh orders within one week thereafter. It shall also be open to the 2nd respondent to indicate its view as to the adequacy or otherwise of the evidence by giving an opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 02.03.2009 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3938 of 2009 Date: 02.03.2009 JSU