IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17208 of 2001 Between: A.Krishnaveni W/o A.L.Rajashanker R/o H.No. 1-4-879/72/1, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Secretary Revenue (Assn.III), A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Marredpally Mandal, Secunderabad. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR MR M.PAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to consider application of the petitioner dated 23-11-1999 for regularization of property bearing Nos.10-3-P105 in Plot No.105 and 10-3-P106 in Plot No.106 situated at Survey No.74/8 of East Marredpally, Secunderabad at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square yard on par with the price ﬁxed under G.O.Ms.No.890 Revenue (Assn.III) Department dated 12-11- 1998. The above mentioned lands were purchased by the vendor of the petitioner in an auction conducted by the Income-Tax Department for recovery of arrears from one Sri P.Bhaskara Murthy. To the ill luck of the purchaser, the said land is claimed as belonging to the Government and land grabbing proceedings were initiated. Along with the petitioner’s vendor, Smt D.Veena and four others also purchased a part of the property of Sri P.Bhaskara Murthy, which was also auctioned by the Income-Tax Department, on 07-02-1984. The said ﬁve persons approached the Government-respondent No.1 through District Collector- respondent No.2 on 09-03-1995 for regularization of their possession. Respondent No.1 considered the said request and accepted the same vide G.O.Ms.No.890 dated 12-11- 1998, wherein it regularized the possession of the said persons subject to payment of market value of Rs.1,000/- per square yard. On 23-11-1999 i.e., one year after the Government issued the said G.O., the petitioner approached respondent No.2 with a similar request. The same was recommended by the latter vide his letter dated 29-12-1999 addressed to the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner, and the Special Chief Secretary, in turn, addressed letter dated 28-01-2000 to the Secretary to the Government, wherein he requested respondent No.1 to take a decision on the basis of the recommendation of the Collector. The grievance of the petitioner is that no decision was taken by respondent No.1 and hence, she ﬁled the present writ petition. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of respondents 2 and 3, it is, inter alia, averred that the petitioner applied for regularization on 23-11-1999 i.e., four years after Smt D.Veena and others applied and hence, the same market value at which the land was regularized in favour of the said persons cannot be applied. It is further stated that from the time when the other ﬁve persons applied in the year 1995, there is increase in the market value and as per the basic value register, the value of the land is Rs.2,500/- per square yard. From the above mentioned facts, it is evident that the basic value, prevailing at the time of regularizing the possession of Smt. D.Veena and four others, was Rs.800/- per square yard as per the basic value register and hence, Rs.1,000/- per square yard was ﬁxed as the market value for regularization of the plots in favour of the said persons. Respondent No.2, in his letter, recommended for regularization of the petitioner’s possession of the said properties at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square yard. From the stand taken in the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled in the year 2002, it is evident that the basic value has been increased to Rs.2,500/- per square yard, but it is not stated in the counter- affidavit that whether the said value was prevailing on 23-11- 1999, when the petitioner made her application for regularization or on the date when the counter was ﬁled. In my considered view, the basic value that was prevailing on the date when the petitioner made her application should be treated as relevant for the purpose of considering her request for regularization. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 is directed to consider the basic value of the property prevailing in the area relating to the property in dispute and regularize the possession of the petitioner in respect of the properties, which are the subject matter of this writ petition, as was done in the case of Smt D.Veena and four others in G.O.Ms.No.890 dated 12-11-1998. Respondent No.1 shall issue notice to the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, calling upon her to pay the market value computed on the basis of the basic value prevailing on 23-11-1999. The petitioner shall pay the amount within four (4) weeks thereafter. Within two (2) weeks of payment of the said amount, respondent No.1 shall issue appropriate proceedings for regularization. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th September, 2008 vrn