IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13318 of 2010 Between: Ala Bhaskar Reddy ..... Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep., by its District Collector, Nizamabad District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T. Sujan Kumar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13318 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not considering and disposing of the petitioner’s representations dated 18.08.2009 and 10.03.2010 for implementing order dated 30.03.2001 of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. In the view this Court is proposing to take, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.3. In the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 over an extent of Ac.3.00 of land situated at Chekki Tarfa of Bodhan town, order dated 30.03.2001 was passed by respondent No.2 (the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Bodhan) directing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to implement the judgment and decree in O.S.No.5 of 1978 in favour of the petitioner for amendment of the entries in the revenue record. This order is confirmed in appeal by the Revenue Divisional Officer vide his order dated 06.02.2002. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad, in the revision filed before him by respondent No.3 against the said two orders, held that the Mandal Revenue Officer has rightly implemented the decree and passed order in favour of the petitioner herein (respondent in the revision petition) and that if any question is raised by the petitioner with reference to the title, the parties are at liberty to approach the civil Court for a remedy. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his success before the hierarchical authorities, the entries in the record of rights are not amended and that his representations dated 18.08.2009 and 10.03.2010 made for this purpose have gone unattended. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the light of the above facts, respondent No.2 has no option other than ensuring that the order passed by him on 30.03.2001 and confirmed in appeal and revision filed by respondent No.3 shall be complied with. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2 to consider and act on the representations dated 18.08.2009 and 10.03.2010 made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16795 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 13.09.2010 ES