IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17167 of 2008 Between: M / s . Matrushri Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuvaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Rep by its Secretary A. Jagannadham. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administrations, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam District. Visakhapatnam. 3 The Tahsildar, (Mandal Revenue Officer), Visakhapatnam District. Visakhapatnam. ...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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking action pursuant to the order in Commr. Appeals' Proc.No. P1/1138/2004 dated 16-3-2006 of the 1st respondent as highly illegal arbitrary and unjust. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.D.V.NAGARJUNA BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.17167 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner submitted an application under Section 11 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Abolition of Estates and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948 (“the Act” for brevity), in respect of the land of an extent of Ac.1.35 cents and Acs.2.00 in Survey Nos.8/6 and 47 respectively of Kurmannapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The application was rejected by the second respondent through order dated 21.08.2004. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 7 (c) of the Act before the first respondent. Through order dated 16.03.2006, the first respondent has set aside the order passed by the second respondent and directed the latter to take further action on the basis of the observations made by him. The first respondent determined the character of the land as ‘ryoti’. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the matter was remanded way back in the year 2006, so far, no action has been taken by the second respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. The second respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of ryotwari patta under the Act. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the first respondent took a view that the land is ‘ryoti’ in nature and the case deserves to be considered under proviso to Section 11 of the Act. Specific direction was given by the first respondent to the second respondent to take further action. However, three years have elapsed. There cannot be any justification to keep the matter pending for such a long time, more so, when it is after remand. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of, directing the second respondent to pass appropriate orders, as directed by the first respondent in his order dated 16.03.2006, within a period of three {3} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 6th April 2009 RRB