IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1068 of 2000 Between: M/s. Mustafa Rose Land Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Rep. by its Secretary, Syed Ahmed, S/o. Syed Hussain, R/o. 16-2-838/39, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, at Saidabad. 3 Station House Officer, Saidabad Police Station, Hyderabad. .....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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the 2nd Respondent contained in letter No.A/5629/99, dated 8-12-1999 purporting to direct the police authorities to provide protection to the hut dwellers in the land in Sy.No.142 of Saidabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, is arbitrary and illegal and consequentially direct the respondents to forbear from extending any protection to hut dwellers/encroachers in the land of the petitioner society in Sy.Nos.183/1, 182 (part) and 142 (part), of Saidabad Village and Mandal, Hyderabad District, and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 1068 of 2000 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the second respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer in addressing a letter dated 08- 12-1999 to the second respondent requesting to provide protection to the hut dwellers in the land situated in Sy.No.142 of Saidabad village and Mandal which is claimed to be a surplus land as per the order of the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Authority in C.C.NO.9598 of 1976. The petitioner-society claims to be an agreement holder from the declarant and it is stated that by the time of filing of the writ petition, an application for exemption of the said land was pending before the Government. Though the petitioner sought interim suspension of the impugned letter dated 08-12-1999, no such order has been granted by this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and having regard to the subsequent developments resulting in repeal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law in case necessity thereof arises. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 19-02-2009 KLP