IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17625 of 2010 Between: Banoth Balram & others. ..... Petitioners AND Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Jogram Tejavath Counsel for respondents 1,2,4-6: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) Counsel for respondent No.3: AGP for Forests The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17625 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in granting pattas to the petitioners over an extent of Ac.60.80 cents in Sy.No.1 of Suraram Block, Lakshmidevipalli area, Somulagudem Gram Panchayat, Palvoncha Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri Jogram Tejavath, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests for respondent No.3. While the petitioners claim that they were the lessees of the abovementioned forest land and that they have also made their applications for grant of pattas under the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, respondent No.3, who filed the counter affidavit, averred that the petitioners’ claims for grant of pattas were considered and the same were rejected as far back as 01.07.2000. Photocopies of the purported acknowledgements evidencing receipt of the rejection orders have been filed along with the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioners seriously disputed receipt of the said rejection orders and stated that they are all forged. In my opinion, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on this disputed question of fact. In the face of the allegation of the petitioners that the copies of the rejection orders have not been served on them, without giving any specific finding thereon, respondent No.3 is directed to serve fresh set of orders within a period of four weeks from today on the petitioners to enable them to avail appropriate legal remedies to question the said orders. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioners to question the rejection orders by availing appropriate remedy. Both parties are directed to maintain status quo for a period of two weeks. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.22264 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.10.2010 ES