IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 18744 of 2008 Between: Chintakunta Rajeswara Rao S/o. Venkata Subbaiah R/o. Dronadula, Martur Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Savalapuram, Guntur 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 to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not issuing pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the representation dt. 21-03-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of ROR Act 1989 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to issue pass books and title deeds in favour of the petitioner after making due enquiry and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner stating that pursuant to the representation made by his wife the respondent - Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Martur declared her as the legal representative of her parents and also issued a certiﬁcate to that eﬀect on 27.10.2004. Thereafter, she made an application along with the legal heir certiﬁcate to the respondent to issue pattadar pass book and title deeds in respect of the land belonging to her father on 10.9.2005 and ultimately after conducting necessary enquiries, she was issued with the pattadar pass books and title deeds. Subsequently, she died and, therefore, he being her husband made a representation to the respondent on 21.3.2008 to issue pass books and title deeds in his name. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far no action has been taken on his representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent submits that since the representation of the petitioner is pending consideration before the respondent, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the authorities may be directed to dispose of the said representation, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner also agreed. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, as agreed to by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer to consider the said representation dated 21.3.2008 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs. N.V.RAMANA,J DATE. 29.8.2008 ka ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Savalapuram, Guntur District. 2. 2CCs to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT). 3 2CD copies