IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28211 of 2008 Between: Midathana Raju S/o. Late Marian, Spring Road Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), Sirpuram Junction Visakhapatnam. 2 The Chief Planning Officer Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA), Siripuram Junction Visakhapatnam. 3 The Executive Officer Kothavalasa Gram Panchayat Kothavalasa Vizianagaram. 4 M.Sudha D/o. Raju Hindu, 26-8-20 Rajaramohan Roy Road Visakhapatnam. 5 V.Jayaprakashbabu S/o. Vasantha Rao, D.No.1-20-1 Vasantha Vihar Vizianagaram. 6 V.Srinivasa Babu S/o.Jayaprakashbabu Hindu, D.No.1-211 Vasantha Vihar Vizianagaram. 7 V.Vasantha Babu S/o.Jayaprakashbabu Hindu, D.No.1-211 Vasantha Vihar Vizianagaram. ...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 particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent disposing of the representation sent by the petitioner herein No.1.12-2008 under registered post with acknowledgment due which was received by the 1st respondent on 4-12-20008 as unjust and illegal and direct the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the above representation sent by the petitioner in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.S.R.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.N.RANGA REDDY (SC FOR MPL. CORP. VSP) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.28211 of 2008 ORDER: According to the petitioner, he purchased an extent of Acs.7.58 ½ cents in Survey Nos.197/1 and 197/2-A of Kothavalasa Village, Vizianagaram District. Colluding with her husband, the petitioner’s daughter brought a forged will dated 26.03.1992, as if the said land was gifted to her by her mother during her life time and on the basis of the said will, she executed registered sale deeds in favour of respondents 5 to 7. In the light of the said sale transaction, respondents 5 to 7 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.No.20 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction against his daughter. Without any authority, whatsoever, because of the alleged sale transaction that took place between them, the fourth respondent started making constructions in the said plot. Immediately, the petitioner approached respondents 1 and 2 and gave a representation on 01.12.2008 stating that the said construction is without any title and the same is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.408 M.A. Municipal Administration and Urban Development (M) Department dated 08.08.1991. However, as no action has been initiated by the official respondents, particularly, respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Writ Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V.Preethi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent. Having considered the submissions, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary for this Court to go into various factual aspects raised in this Writ Petition and is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission by dispensing with the usual notice to the unofficial respondents. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation given by the petitioner dated 01.12.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that before considering the said representation and passing any orders, he may put respondents 4 to 7 on notice, so that they can ventilate their grievances. It is only after hearing the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four {4} weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 26th December 2008 RRB