THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.22443 of 2010 DT.28.10.2010 Between: Ghansi Ram … Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary for Revenue Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.Jyothi Kiran Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in regularizing plot No.40 admeasuring 808 sq.yards in Survey No.74/9, East Marredpally Village, Secunderabad, in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, as illegal and contrary to the said G.O. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to regularize the said plot in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008. I have heard Smt.G.Jyothi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment). The petitioner claims to have purchased the above-mentioned plot from one Seva Mandal Society under a registered sale deed, dated 21.02.1990. Claiming that the land belongs to the Government, the respondents filed L.G.C.No.167 of 1997 in the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases against the petitioner’s vendor and others. The petitioner pleaded that during the pendency of the said case, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has granted building permissions in respect of the plots in dispute, including his plot, and that the L.G.C., was dismissed by the Special Court on 18.03.2010. It is the further pleaded case of the petitioner that in order to buy peace the petitioner requested for regularization of his plot in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, by making an application on 16.06.2008, which was acknowledged by the respondents. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 is the competent authority to transfer the land under the said G.O., as the extent of plot exceeds 500 sq.yards. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite pendency of the application for more than two years, respondent No.1 has not taken a decision on his application. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s application was referred to the District Level Committee headed by respondent No.3 and that after the report submitted by the District Level Committee, the matter is pending before respondent No.2. In my opinion, there is no justification for respondent No.1 to keep the petitioner’s application pending, even though a writ petition is stated to have been filed against the judgment of the Special Court in the L.G.C. The very fact that the petitioner applied for regularization presupposes that he does not want to dispute the title of the Government. Irrespective of the judgment pertaining to L.G.C., the petitioner seeks to proceed on the premise that the land belongs to the Government. In this view of the matter, respondent No.1 shall dispose of the petitioner’s application expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioner’s application for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.28609 and 33198 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 28.10.2010 VGB