IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16888 of 2009 Between: Pinnireddy Subrahmanyam ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Circle Inspector, Excise, Podili, Prakasam District and others. .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 16888 of 2009 ORDER : According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the property in Door No.11/465 (41) at Sy. No.191/2 admeasuring 171.8 square yards situated at Podili town, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed, vide document No.3980/2007, dated 06-10-2007 from the original owner. It is further stated that though he is the absolute owner of the said property and no leasehold rights were given in favour of any body, the official respondents entertained the application of the 6th respondent and permitted him to open a wine shop in the said premises. Questioning the action of the official respondents, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 3. After taking notice and getting instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies submitted that originally the petitioner is the owner of the said property, but subsequently, the same was sold to 1lluri Venkateswarlu and in that context, an agreement of sale was entered into on 30-12-2005 and thereafter, on 09-05-2007, Venkateswarlu sold the property to Avula Krishna Reddy, who in-turn, executed a rental agreement in favour the 6th respondent on 28-06- 2008 and delivered possession of the property to him and ever since the 6th respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, the entire transaction is purely civil in nature and it is to be decided by the competent Civil Court only. 4. Though notice was served on the 6th respondent, the lessee, who is carrying on business at the premises in question, has not chosen to put in his appearance. 5. Apparently, there is a civil dispute to be decided by the competent Civil Court. However, as it is the contention of the petitioner that he gave a representation on 08-10-2008 narrating the circumstances and has demonstrated that he still continues to be absolute owner of the premises in question, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders/action, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. With aforementioned direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ December 21, 2009 kvr