HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH REVIEW W.P.M.P. No. 38096 of 2009 IN WRIT PETITION No. 23288 of 2006 ORDER: This review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 12.10.2009 in Writ Petition No. 23288 of 2006. Writ Petition No. 23288 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner, namely, Rakesh Tak, S/o. Balbirsingh Tak, the 1st respondent herein, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, namely, District Collector, Hyderabad and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad in not removing the constructions over the G.V.M. Road in respect of the premises bearing No. 23-4-697 admeasuring 84 sq. yards, situated in T.S. No.40, Block L, Ward No. 219 of Shaher-e-Hyderabad Village, Bahadurpura Mandal, Hyderabad District, Hyderbad as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was the case of the 1st respondent that he made a representation on 21.9.2006 to the respondents 2 and 3 stating that the review petitioner/respondent No.3 had encroached upon the G.V.M. road and constructed a house illegally and causing nuisance to the 1st respondent- writ petitioner and also to other neighbours. When no action has been taken by the respondents 2 and 3 on the said representation, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition. By order dated 13.10.2009, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the official respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation made by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner on 21.9.2006 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Now, the review petitioner, who is the third respondent in the said writ petition, filed the present application seeking review of the said order on the ground that there is a compromise between her and the 1st respondent (writ petitioner) in connection with O.S. No. 507 of 2006 filed by the 1st respondent and also W.P. No. 23288 of 2006 and the writ petitioner had suppressed the aforesaid fact and obtained the order in the writ petition. Therefore, the said order needs to be reviewed. Admittedly, by the order under review, this Court has only directed the official respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 21.9.2006 of the 1st respondent/writ petitioner within a period of two months and it had not adjudicated upon the rights of the parties. Therefore, it is for the official respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner. However, it is also open for the review petitioner to bring it to the notice of the official respondents, i.e., respondents 2 and 3, before whom the writ petitioner filed the representation dated 21.9.2006 about the alleged compromise, if the same is pending as on date. Further, if such a representation is still pending, the official respondents shall take into consideration the alleged compromise and such other material that may be filed by the review petitioner while considering the representation of the writ petitioner dated 21.9.2006. The review petition is accordingly closed. __________________ G. CHANDRAIAH,J Date: 24th February, 2010 pnb