IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1180 of 2009 Between: Vakiti Raghuram Reddy S/o. Ramaiah R/o. Kondamadugu Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4 The Sub-Collector / Asst. Collector, Bhongir, Nalgonda 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 order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing the representation dated 14.11.2007 for mutating the name of the petitioner in the relevant pahanies in pursuance of the Decree dated 31.03.1997 in O.S.No.300 of 1984 on the file of Court of the Principal District Munsiff at Bhongir, Nalgonda District, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional under the Article 14, 21 & 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to dispose the representation dated 14.11.2007 pending before the Respondent No.4, in pursuance to the Decree dated 31.03.1997 in O.S.No.300 of 1984 on the file of Court of the Principal District Munsiff at Bhongir, Nalgonda District, forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.S.P.SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application, dated 14.11.2007, to the Sub-Collector/Assistant Collector, Bhongir, the fourth respondent, with a request to make entries in the relevant revenue records, in terms of decree passed in O.S.No.300 of 1984, dated 31.03.1997, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Bhongir. It is stated that the suit was filed by Mr.Vakiti Deva Reddy and Vakiti Madhusudhan Reddy and that the petitioner figured as defendant No.40. It is also stated that under the decree, the petitioner was allotted a share over the land in some of the survey numbers. His grievance is that the fourth respondent is not taking steps on the application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner bases his claim on a decree passed by the civil Court. If any valid rights have accrued to the petitioner, there is no reason why they are not reflected in the revenue records. In case the fourth respondent has any objection in acceding to the request of the petitioner, he has to pass a reasoned order and the application cannot be kept pending, indefinitely. The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the fourth respondent to take necessary steps on the application submitted by the petitioner on 14.11.2007, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The fourth respondent shall ensure that the affected parties are issued notice before the entries are made. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dated:29.01.2009. GJ