IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.21369 of 2008 Between: K.R Chandrahas S/o.K.S Radhakrishna R/o. Near 4 Cross Road Gandrajpalli(Post) Gangavaram (M) Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P rep.by its District Collector, Chittoor District Chittoor 2 The State of A.P Sub Collector Madanpalli District 3 The State of A.P rep.by its Mandal Revenue Officer Tahasildar Gangavaram(M) Chittoor District .....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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1to 2 in not taking action of the representation of the petitioner dt 17-4-2008 dt 26-6- 2008 as illegal improper arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the respondents to consider and dispose the representations dt 17-4-2008 dt 26-6-2008 made by the petitioner forthwith for payment of compensation and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Not present Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled by the petitioner stating that he is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.2.48 cents and Ac.5.00 cents situated in Survey Nos.303/1A and 303/1B of Gandrajupalle Village of Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, and he has planted Mango, Sapota and Coconut trees in the said land. Though the said land and trees were taken over by the respondents- Government for Special Economic Zone purpose, compensation is not paid. Therefore, he ﬁled representations before the ﬁrst respondent-the District Collector, Chittoor District and the second respondent – Sub-Collector, Madanapally seeking exgratia, but the same were not considered. Hence, he ﬁled the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions to respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of his representations dated 17.4.2008 and 26.6.2008. None appears for the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that since the petitioner has already made representations to the authorities, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, the respondents may be directed to consider and dispose of the representations of the petitioner. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law expeditiously. N.V.RAMANA, J Dt.13.10.2008 va/msv