IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3726 of 2009 Between: Bheemireddy Laxmaiah S/o. B. Kishtaiah R/o. H.No.2-1-191, Chandranna Kunta, Suryapet Village & Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 Suryapet Municipality rep. by its Commissioner, Suryapet, Nalgonda 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 issue a writ, order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities trying to dispossess the petitioner in the guise of laying a road, from the land admeasuring 1 acre in Survey No.189/A/5 situated at B-Madaram Village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : O R D E R:- The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.01.00 cents in S.No.189/A/5 situated at B-Madaram village, Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District and the revenue authorities issued him pattedar passbooks and title deeds under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land & Pattedar Passbooks Act (for short “the Act”). While so, the workmen of the 2nd respondent-Municipality, on 13.2.2009, tried to dig part of his land for the purpose of widening the main road. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 13.02.2009 to conduct necessary survey to confirm that the land in question belongs to the petitioner, and it is his grievance that in spite of his representation, the 2nd respondent, without following due process of law, in the guise of laying public road, dug part of his land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for Suryapet Municipality appearing for the 2nd respondent. Since the representation, dated 13.02.2009 said to have been filed by the petitioner, is said to be pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, all the counsel agreed to the disposal of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 2nd respondent-Suryapet Municipality is directed to consider the representation dated 13.02.2009 said to have been made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon after examining the objections, if any, that may be raised by the petitioner in accordance with law. Unless and until the petitioner’s representation is considered and disposed of, the 2nd respondent shall not lay road in the petitioner’s land nor acquire any portion of his land. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 26th February, 2009 bcj