IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8820 of 2009 Between: Sambhaji S/o.Poshetty R/o.Bhainsa village and Mandal, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Adilabad 2 The Tahsildar, Bhainsa Mandal, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue any appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation dt. 12-9-2007 filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the Memo No. B/1015/2007 dt. 20-4-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent herein rejecting the request of the petitioner for assignment of Government Land in Sy.No. 134 extent Ac 4-30 guntas situated at Bhainsa Village and Mandal, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 8820 of 2009 Order: The petitioner was in enjoyment of land of Acs.4.30 guntas in Survey No. 134/1 of Bhainsa Village and Mandal for certain years. Since there was no formal order of assignment, the matter was placed before the Mandal Assignment Review Committee. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.4623 of 2007 with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider his case for assignment. The writ petition was disposed of on 8.3.2007 directing the Tahsildar, Bhainsa, the 2nd respondent herein to verify two aspects, namely, the possession of the petitioner over the land and the nature of recommendation made by the Committee. In compliance with the same, the 2nd respondent issued Memo dated 20.4.2007, observing that the possession of the petitioner over the land intermittent between 1983 and 2002 and that the recommendation in favour of the petitioner by the Committee was defective. The petitioner submitted a representation/appeal on 12.9.2007 before the 1st respondent. His grievance is that no action has been taken thereof. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The 2nd respondent did admit the possession of the petitioner over the land for fairly long period. However, on the ground that it was not continuous and current, he recorded a finding against the petitioner. The defects in the recommendation of the Committee were also pointed out. The petitioner has availed the remedy of approaching the superior in the hierarchy of administration. Being the Head of the Revenue Department, the 1st respondent can call for the relevant records and examine the grievance pointed out by the petitioner. Nearly two years have elapsed. The matter cannot brook any further delay. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to examine the representation dated 12.9.2007 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date: 28th April, 2009 Note: Furnish c.c. in one week. B/o pnb