HONOURABLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.2521 of 2006 Between: G. Kishan Rao, S/o late Rangaiah …. Petitioner And: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and three others. ….Respondents ORDER: Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. O. Manohar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Government Pleader for Revenue 13th February, 2006 Per. G.S. Singhvi, CJ In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of prohibition to restrain Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Attapur, Hyderabad from dispossessing him from the land admeasuring 887 square yards in Sy.No.130 of Kukatpally village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to direct the officer concerned to decide his representations dated 10.03.1997 and 23.09.2005 in the back drop of order dated 10.03.1997 passed by the Special Court in L.G.C.No.55 of 1996. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the record. In so far as the petitioner’s prayer for restraining the respondents from dispossessing him is concerned, it is sufficient to observe that6 Writ Petition No.32297 of 1998 filed by him with similar prayer was disposed of by the learned Single Judge with the observation that he cannot be dispossessed summarily without disposing of representation dated 28.03.1997. In regard to the second prayer of the petitioner, we deem it proper to direct Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, Attapur, Hyderabad that within one month of the receipt of copy of this order, the representation, if any, made by the petitioner be disposed of in the light of order dated 10.03.1997 passed by the Special Court in L.G.C.No.55 of 1996. It is however made clear that this order shall not be construed as a mandate of the Court for regularizing the illegal occupation of the Government land by the petitioner and officer concerned shall take independent decision uninfluenced by the orders passed by this Court. If the officer concerned has already decided the representations made by the petitioner, then he shall not be required to pass fresh orders because that would amount to revival of a dead claim. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 13-02-2006 Ksn/Svv/vtv