IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20762 of 2008 Between: K. Sesha Reddy, S/o. K. Pedda Subba Reddy, D.No. 20/38, 38-1, Yerraguntla Road, Proddatur, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director, Town and Country Planning, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 640-A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner, Proddatur Municipality, Proddatur, Kadapa 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing the application ﬁled by the petitioner on 21-8-2008 for conversion of land usage from worship temple use to commercial and Residential use in Sy.No. 495/2 and 3 of Proddatur Village, Kadapa District is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural and consequently direct the respondents to consider application of the petitioner dated 21-8-2008 forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been ﬁled by K.Sesha Reddy assailing the inaction of the respondents in considering the application dated 21.8.2008 for conversion of land usage from worship temple to commercial and residential use. The petitioner claims to be owner of land in Sy.No.495/2 & 3, Yerraguntla road, Proddatur. He claims to have ﬁled an application to the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent for conversion of the land use. His application remained unattended. Hence, he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development received notice on behalf of R1 and R2 and Sri S.I.Newton, learned standing counsel for Municipalities received notice on behalf of R3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for R1 and R2 and Sri S.I.Newton, learned standing counsel for Municipalities appearing for R3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an application dated 21.8.2008 for conversion of land use and his application has not been considered so far. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the writ aﬃdavit does not disclose extent and also location of the land. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh application detailing location of the land and constructions existing, if any, for conversion of land from public and semi public to commercial. On such application being ﬁled, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with the provisions of law and pass appropriate orders, as expeditiously as possible. No costs. __________ 23-09-2008 rkk