IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24592 of 2005 Between: 1 Mohd.Muneeruddin, s/o Mohd.Mahmood, r/o H.No.17-2-1231, Yakootpura, Hyderabad. 2 Mohd.Yousufuddin, s/o Anwar Hussain, r/o H.No.17-3-745, Yakootpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 State Collector, Hyderabad District at Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 Special Chief Secretary to Government (Revenue)(ASNI) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 Revenue Divisional officer, Secunderabad at Secunderabad Minister Road. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Mandal Shaikpet, Banjara Hills, District, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri A.Pulla Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMENTS) The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider application dated 23-09-2005 filed by the petitioners for regularization of their occupation of premises bearing house No.8-2-120/86/9/S, Road No.14, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1601 Revenue (ASNI) Department, dated 29-08-2005. Heard Sri A.Pulla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) for the respondents. The petitioners claim that they purchased the above mentioned property under a registered sale deed dated 27-10-1987 and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same since then. They averred that they subsequently came to know that the said land belongs to the Government and that without disclosing the said fact, their vendor Syed Shakeel Ahmed, who encroached into the land and constructed two rooms on the same, alienated the said property to them describing himself as absolute owner and possessor. They further averred that they entered into agreement of sale dated 20-10-1994 with Yousuf Shareef Khan and S.Markandyeloo, who in turn entered into agreement of sale on 09-11-1994 with M.S.Satyanarayana and executed general power of attorney on 05-12-1994 in his favour. They also pleaded that the said M.S.Satyanarayana, who obtained general power of attorney from Yousuf Shareef Khan and S.Markandyeloo submitted his application on 02-12-1995 to respondent No.1 for regularization of the encroachment of the above mentioned premises admeasuring 435 square yards under G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20-10-1995; that he filed W.P.No.9305 of 1997 in this Court for a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to consider his application and that this Court vide order dated 01-05-1997 directed the respondents to consider the application in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.508 dated 20-10-1995. The petitioners further pleaded that the subsequent purchasers under the agreement of sale and M.S.Satyanarayana settled the matter with the petitioners and they restored the possession of the premises to them and that respondent No.2 issued G.O.Ms.No. 1601 dated 29-08-2005, in continuation of G.O.Ms.Nos.508 dated 20-10-1995 and certain other G.Os, extending the period for receiving fresh applications for regularization of unauthorized occupation by one year up to 31-03-2006 by fixing the last date for receiving fresh applications up to 31-12-2005 and that the petitioners submitted their application on 23-09-2005 to respondent No.1 with a request to regularize the premises. The grievance of the petitioners is that till the date, respondent No.1 had not taken any action on the said application and respondents 3 and 4 are threatening them with dispossession. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet Mandal, the fact that the petitioners submitted their application for regularization has been admitted. It is, however, stated that the sale deed executed by some unauthorized persons in favour of the petitioners is null and void and it has no legal sanctity; that the application submitted by the petitioners for regularization was forwarded by the Office of the Collector to the answering respondent on 01-09- 2005 for enquiry and that having completed the enquiry, he submitted a report to the District Collector for taking necessary action. Since the subsequent development following the submission of the report was not stated in the counter-affidavit, this Court on 30-06- 2008, adjourned the case to enable the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments) to ascertain the present status and report to the Court whether the District Collector has taken any action on the report submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shaikpet. Today, at the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that no order has been passed by the District Collector. In view of the fact that the Government has been issuing G.Os from time to time providing for regularization of the unauthorized occupation of the lands, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein, and the fact that the petitioners made their application in pursuance of the G.O. that was holding the field at that time and the same was enquired into and a report was submitted by respondent No.4, it is appropriate that respondent No.1 shall consider and dispose of the application of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1601 dated 28-09-2005 and in the light of the report submitted by respondent No.4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.1 shall complete the above mentioned exercise, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after notice and an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 8th July, 2008 vrn