IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL NO : 839 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/03/2001 in WP NO : 5036 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Anumalla Chandraiah son of Venkata Ramaiah R/o Choppadani Village & Mandal karimnagar Dist ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Secretary for Revenue Department The State of A.P Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, karimnagar 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer Choppadandi, karimnagar Dist 4 Executive Officer The Gram Panchayath Choppadandi, Karimnagar District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.C.RAMESH SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.839 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 20.03.2001, dismissing Writ Petition No.5036 of 2000, which was filed seeking declaration of the action of the respondents in not considering the request of the appellant/petitioner for regularization of occupation in or over 1½ guntas land in Sy.No.293, situated at Choppadandi village and Revenue Mandal, Karimnagar district and to extend the benefits of G.O.Ms.No.508, Revenue, dated 20.10.1995. The grievance of the appellant-petitioner is that he is in continuous occupation of the land admeasuring 1½ guntas in Sy.No.293, situated at Choppadandi village of Karimnagar Mandal and district and that he filed an application for regularization of his possession in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 and the same has not been considered. A counter affidavit was filed before the learned Single Judge stating that the appellant was not entitled to grant of patta in terms of G.O.Ms.No.508 as the appellant did not construct a dwelling unit on the land occupied by him. There is also a contention that the application of the appellant was not considered, but in the counter it is specifically stated that the petitioner’s application was rejected. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that the application was rejected, as it was belated and on merits, the appellant was not entitled for regularization of the occupation. We are of the opinion that the dispute relates purely to a question of fact and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Learned Counsel for the appellant requests liberty to avail remedy in accordance with law. The appellant is permitted to avail the remedy as available to him. ______________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. Date: 04.08.2008 ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. GS/ASP