THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24638 of 2010 Dated 04th October, 2010 Between: A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board …Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. N. Naveen Kumar Counsel for respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in initiating proceedings for conducting enquiry in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.55.28 guntas in survey Nos.1077 and 1078 of Yedulabad Village, Hyderabad East, presently Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and contrary to the order dated 05.10.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22371 of 2007. I have heard Sri N. Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner claims to hold the abovementioned land through a gift executed by its original owner, by name, Raja Triyambak Nandalal as far back as 26.01.1954. Two persons, by name, D. Srinivas and D. Rajesh, filed W.P.No.22371 of 2007 questioning the proceedings dated 23.09.2006, by which the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar, directed to change the entries in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner herein by showing the lands as Khariz Khata Bhoodan in respect of about Acs.9.00 of land. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 05.10.2009 while setting aside the said proceedings dated 23.09.2006 on the ground that the same were not preceded by a notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. This Court left it open to the revenue authorities to take action after issuing appropriate notice to the petitioners therein and other concerned persons. Purporting to follow the said order, respondent No.3 has addressed a letter dated 05.08.2010 to respondent No.2, wherein he has opined that the various lands referred to in his letter can be treated as pattta lands and not as belonging to the petitioner. He has requested respondent No.2 to address the petitioner to treat the above lands as patta lands and delete the same from their records duly cancelling the allotments already made in favour of different persons. At the hearing, Sri N. Naveen Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that this letter addressed by respondent No.3 is in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not put on notice before addressing the letter by the former. In my opinion, the impugned letter is not in the nature of an order adjudicating the respective rights of the parties. Had it been so, respondent No.3 would have on his own, taken appropriate consequential action. At best, the impugned letter can be treated as an expression of opinion of respondent No.3, on the basis of which he requested respondent No.2 to take further action. Since no order adverse to its interests had been passed so far, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. However, the petitioner is entitled to approach respondent No.2 by raising all legally sustainable objections to the opinion expressed by respondent No.3 and to request respondent No.2 not to act on such opinion. Respondent No.2 shall consider such objections of the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the further action to be taken by respondent No.2 on the opinion of respondent No.3, it is entitled to avail appropriate remedy available to it in accordance with law. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31524 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th October, 2010 GHN