IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 973 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/08/2005 in WP No:18310 of 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri Konathala Devakinandarao S/o. Hanumantharao, Vizianagaram, ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Prl. Secretary, Revenue (K) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, 2 The District Collector, Vizianagaram, 3 The Vice Chairman, V.U.D.A. Visakhapatnam, 4 The Spl. Deputy Collector, Cum and Acquisition Officer, V.U.D.A. Visakhapatnam, 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard both sides and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. The appellant herein is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who sought Mandamus inter alia declaring the action of the respondents herein in not re-conveying the land, which was acquired from him earlier by way of proceedings issued under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The main ground urged by the appellant/writ petitioner in the writ petition was that the land belonging to him though acquired for the purpose of formation of ring road, the same has not been utilized. It was also stated that the land of the similarly situated person abutting to the petitioner’s land, which was also acquired for the very same purpose of formation of road, has been re-conveyed. Therefore, he sought for similar relief. However he also stated that he has submitted a representation on 8.10.1993 before the respondent authorities and in pursuance of the same, the ﬁfth respondent addressed a letter on 13.2.2004 but did not take any action, and the same is still pending. Hence he filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after taking into consideration the rival submissions holding that a person has no enforceable right to seek re-conveyance of the land, which was already acquired by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it. Therefore, the question of issuing Mandamus in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, we are in entire agreement of the learned Single Judge, as there is no enforceable right on the petitioner to seek re-conveyance of the land. However, having regard to the fact that the appellant had submitted a representation on 8.10.1993 and the same is still pending for consideration by the respondents, it is always open for the respondents to dispose of the same. Therefore, the appellant herein is directed to ﬁle a fresh representation ventilating his grievance put forth in the earlier representation and the respondents are at liberty to dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after putting the appellant on notice and giving him an opportunity. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J.) ___________________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) 16th September, 2008 Js. .......REGISTRAR To 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Prl. Secretary, Revenue (K) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, 2 The District Collector, Vizianagaram, 3 The Vice Chairman, V.U.D.A. Visakhapatnam, 4 The Spl. Deputy Collector, Cum and Acquisition Officer, V.U.D.A. Visakhapatnam, 5 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, 6 2 CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. (OUT) 7 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {RS}