THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19531 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.4 in considering his appeal/representation, dated 22.12.2008, as illegal and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently, issue directions to respondent No.4 to decide the matter within four (4) weeks. Petitioner claims to be the great grand son of late Nawab Fakhrul Bahadur, who is stated to be the original owner of the land admeasuring Acs.67.20 guntas covered by old Survey No.29 corresponding Survey Nos.50 to 57 situated at Yusufguda Village, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad District. On the ground that in spite of submitting representation, dated 17.11.2007, to the Government represented by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, seeking to declare him as a legal heir of Nawab Fakhrul Bahadur and also the ownership rights over the land in question, it was not being considered, the petitioner approached this Court, in the earlier occasion, by filing W.P.No.17054 of 2008. Based on the directions issued therein, the Tahsildar, Khairatabad Mandal, issued Memo bearing No.C/17/08, dated 19.11.2008, stating that the erstwhile Nizam Government purchased the land in question from Nawab Fakrul Mulk on 04.03.1943 (26th Safar 1362 Hijri) and the Government of Andhra Pradesh, as successor, acquired rights over the said property and used for public purposes, as such, representation of the petitioner does not deserve any consideration and accordingly, rejected the same. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he has filed appeal/representation before the fourth respondent against Memo, dated 19.11.2008, it is not being considered. On a perusal of the appeal/representation of the petitioner and the Memo issued by the Tahsildar, I am of the view that it is a clear case where the petitioner is seeking declaration of ownership rights over the land in question, which is claimed by the Government as of its own and used for public purposes. Except filing such representation, there is no material produced before this Court in support of his claim. Further, the claim made by the petitioner is not referable to any of the statutory provisions under any legislation. In such circumstance, the petitioner has to seek remedies before appropriate Court of law, in the absence of any authority on the Tahsildar to declare such rights, as claimed by the petitioner, and that the very representation of the petitioner appears to be per se illegal and cannot be maintained under any law. In that view of the matter, no direction can be issued even for disposal of such representation filed by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th AUGUST, 2010. kvni