HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29682 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in not initiating any action on the representation made by the petitioner dated 14.3.2011 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents not to sanction any permission to the 6th respondent in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.33 guntas in Sy.No.132/2, situated at Gaddiannaram village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2. Heard. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the father of the petitioner was the absolute owner of the land admeasuring Ac.1.33 guntas in Sy.No.131.132 situated at Gaddiannaram village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; that he sold away major portion of the above property retaining an extent of Ac.0.33 guntas in Sy.No.132/2; that the petitioner is the only legal heir and no other person is declared as legal heir of Mir Mohammed Alihan; that consequent to the death of the said Mir Mohammed Ali Khan, the petitioner has become the absolute owner of the property in question; that even prior to the death of his father in view of oral gift, the name of the petitioner was incorporated in the revenue records since 1997; that consequently after the death of his father, he made a representation to the revenue authorities to continue his name in the records, that after verification of documents and antecedents of the petitioner, his name was incorporated in the revenue records; that since his name was not correctly spelled in the records, he submitted an application to rectify the same; that as the schedule property was not properly demarcated with meets and bounds, the petitioner made an application to the concerned authorities for demarcation of the land; that as there was no action from the concerned authorities, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19375 of 2001 before this Court and this Court directed the revenue authorities to demarcate the lands within 2 months by an order dated 18.10.2001 and accordingly the demarcation was done by the authorities in the year 2004; that on verification the petitioner came to know that the 6th respondent created false documents showing 7th respondent as the son of Mir Mohammed Ali Khan who is the father of petitioner; that the petitioner also came to know that the 6th respondent who is no way connected with the property made application to the 2nd respondent for sanction of plan for construction in the said land; that therefore, the petitioner as the owner of the land made a representation dated 14.3.2011 to the respondents complaining against him with regard to the property along with documentary evidence; that having received the same neither there is any reply nor there is information about the status of his application and hence he filed the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 6th respondent is making illegal constructions without there being any sanctioned plan by producing the false documents before the concerned authorities; that a direction may be given to the respondents 1 to 5 to initiate appropriate action against the 6th respondent. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 contended that the representation of the petitioner was not available so as to enable them to take further action and if the petitioner files a fresh representation along with relevant documents, the same shall be considered after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the 6th respondent. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of making representation dated 14.3.2011, the respondents 1 to 5 are not taking any action against his representation. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in view of the fact that the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 that there is no representation available with the respondents 1 to 5, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation along with all the relevant documents to the respondents 1 to 5, and then the respondents 1 to 5 shall take an appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner after in accordance with law giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as to the 6th respondent. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU,J. 10.11.2011, Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.29682 OF 2011 Date:10.11.2011 Gk.