IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 17716 of 2008 Between: P.A. Padmanabhaiah, S/o. late Mala Kondarayudu, R/o. H.No. 13-9-198, Panduranga Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad 500 018 (A.P.) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad(A.P.) 2 Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceilings, Chandra Vihar, Hyderabad (A.P.) .....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 order or direction or writ more appropriately a WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the action of the Respondents, particularly the 2nd Respondent in not considering the application of the Petitioner for regularization having received the requisite amount as per G.O.Ms.No. 455, Revenue (U.C.I) Department, dated 29-07-2002 is illegal and further direct the Respondents to consider and dispose of the said application No. H2/455/335/SA/05, dated 17-06-2005 of the Petitioner in terms of the G.O.Ms.No. 455, Revenue (U.C.I) Department dated 29-07-2002 forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1and 2: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner stating that he has ﬁled an application seeking regularization of the lands as per G.O.Ms.No.455 Revenue (U.C.I) Department, dated 29.07.2002 issued under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. Though the said application was received by the second respondent on 17.06.2005 along with a Demand Draft for Rs.11,865/-, till date, no orders are passed. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Though the matter was adjourned twice at the request of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for getting instructions, no instructions are forthcoming. However, it is submitted that since the application of the petitioner is pending before the respondents, without going into the merits of the matter, the authorities may be directed to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner, for which course of action, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also agreed. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner, dated 17.06.2005 in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.455, dated 29.07.2002 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months. N.V.RAMANA, J Dt.15.09.2008 va/msv