IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4836 of 2008 Between: Y. Aruna W/o. Y. Vijaya Kumar E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, E.G. District at Kakinada. 3 The Tahsildar Kakinada (U) Mandal, E.G. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 3rd respondent in not issuing the pattadar Pass Books inspite of application dt. 5-1-2007 made by the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India apart from provisions of A.P. Records of Right Act and Rules made thereunder and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MREATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4836 of 2008 ORAL ORDER:-- This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the third respondent in not issuing the pattadar pass book to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land to an extent of Ac.2.67 cents in survey No. 144/2, Ramanayyapeta village, kakinada urban, East Godavari district through a registered document no. 3638 of 2007 dated 28.2.2007 and submitted an application in May,2007 to the third respondent for issuance of Pattadar Pass Book as required under A.P.Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar pass Book Act. Since, no further action is taken in the matter, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 and 2 seeking their indulgence in the matter. The first respondent vide proceedings dated 27.1.2008 forwarded the representation of the petitioner to second respondent to sort out the matter urgently. In turn the second respondent addressed letter dated 11.2.2008 to the third respondent to take necessary action in the matter and submit detailed report. In spite of the same, no further action is taken by the third respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. Though sufficient time is granted, learned Government Pleader for Revenue could not obtain instructions in the matter, however, today when the matter is taken up, he submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the third respondent to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 1.5.2007 in accordance with law. Learned counsel for petitioner agreed for the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the agreed stand taken by both the counsel, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the third respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 1.5.2007 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J DATE: 14.3.2008 TVK ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4836 of 2008 Date: 14.3.2008