IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23142 of 2008 Between: G. Ravi Kumar S/o. G. Yellappa , Hindu Postal Colony,Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Settlement Officer-Cum-Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Tahsildar, Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District. 3 Boyapati Rajasekhar S/o. Boyapati Peddanna Anantapur District. .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not disposing of the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent in SR No. 1 64/15(1)/75/ATP dt. 22-5-1975 which is pending since 20-8-2004 is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to dispose of the claim petition to giving opportunity to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.23142 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioner’s father was allegedly a claimant in settlement case being S.R.No.64/15(1)/75/ATP, before Settlement Officer under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act, for brevity). In the said case, ryotwari patta was claimed in respect of land admeasuring Acs.0.84 in survey No.112/1 situated at Papampet village of Anantapur Rural Mandal. Petitioner alleges that though his father was alive, notice sent to him was returned by second respondent with endorsement as he died. The case was dismissed for default on 22.5.1975. Petitioner’s father then filed application for restoration of S.R.No.64/15(1)/75/ATP. Petitioner alleges that the same is still pending and in spite of approaching number of times, first respondent did not take up the matter. In this writ petition, he seeks a direction to first respondent to dispose of claim petition. Writ petition is opposed at the admission stage itself by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-Andhra Area) and learned Counsel appearing for third respondent. They say that in July 1988, after conducting regular enquiry, ryotwari patta was granted to third respondent in S.R.No.75/15/1/87/ATP. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, after getting instructions, submits that application of petitioner was already disposed of on 22.5.2005 and his application for furnishing certified copies was rejected on 03.7.2006. He has produced original records before this Court from office of Settlement Officer as well as file from the office of first respondent. This Court has perused relevant documents therein, which would support contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader. In that view of the matter, this Court is of considered opinion that writ petition is filed on allegations, which are incorrect. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 26, 2008 YS To 1 The Settlement Officer-Cum-Joint Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Tahsildar, Anantapur Mandal, Anantapur District. 3. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. Two C.D. Copies.