IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11211 of 2009 Between: Kommu Poshamallu S/o. Gattaiah R/o.Raghavapur [V], Peddapalli [M], Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND Tahsildar, Peddapalli [M], Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction on the part of the respondent on the petitioner application dt. 20.04.2009 for restoration of possession in respect of land of Ac.3.22 guntas in Survey Number 1109 of Raghavapur Village as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of Section 32 of Andhra Pradesh [Telangana Area] Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent to conduct enquiry and decide the petitioner application and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.11211 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER There are no merits in this writ petition as it is premature. The petitioner’s brother seems to have been issued a certificate under Section.38-E of A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (21 of 1950) (for short “the Act”) by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Peddapalli on 31-12-1974. He died some 15 years ago. The petitioner claims to have succeeded to his brother’s title to the property. There is an ambiguous pleading in para 4 of the writ petition that the land was encroached by some unstated persons apparently during the lifetime of the petitioner’s brother about 15 years ago. In his representation dated.20-04- 2009 to the respondent the petitioner sought relief under Section 32 of the Act for restoration of possession of the land of an extent of Ac.3.22 guntas in Sy.No.1109 of Raghavapur Village, Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District. Aggrieved that his 15 years delayed representation has not yet been disposed of, the petitioner has filed this writ petition about 1½ months after submitting the representation. In the facts and circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner appears premature. There is no reason to assume that the respondent would not expeditiously consider the petitioner’s representation. The respondent should be permitted some time having regard to the fact that the petitioner had made a representation after 1½ decades of his entitlement to the property and even the date of dispossession and accrual of a cause of action. On the aforesaid analysis the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 10th JUNE 2009 *TSNR