IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19932 of 2010 Between: Mentioned. Basheer & another. ..... Petitioners AND The Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Saroornagar (M), R.R. District. .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri S. Tulasi Das Counsel for the respondent : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19932 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in mutating the names of the petitioners, who claim to be the successors of the original protected tenant, in the occupancy column from the years 2007-08 onwards in the relevant pahanies in respect of Sy.Nos.6, 7 and 93 to 96 of Jalpally Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary. The petitioners claimed to be the legal heirs of the original protected tenant late Sri Mysaiah @ Abdul Rehman in respect of the lands in the abovementioned survey numbers. They pleaded that they have filed an application under Section 40 read with Section 32 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 and that the same was allowed by the respondent on 17.04.2003. It is the further case of the petitioners that in pursuance of the said order, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has delivered possession of the lands to them on 18.04.2003 and that since then they are in possession of the property. The grievance of the petitioners is that though an application was made for mutation of their names in the relevant records in respect of the abovementioned survey numbers, except Sy.Nos.95 and 96 in respect of which mutation was already made, the respondent has not taken any action. Though this case underwent several adjournments to enable the respondent to file a counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed. At the hearing, Sri S. Tulasi Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed before the Court a purported copy of application dated 10.03.2010 made to the respondent and representation dated 01.06.2010 submitted to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, which was received on 03.06.2010 in support of the plea of the petitioners that they made appropriate applications for mutation. In my opinion, the respondent is bound to consider the petitioners’ representations, if received and act in accordance with law. If the respondent finds any sustainable reason for rejecting the petitioners’ representations, he shall pass an appropriate order. In the above premises, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent to consider representation dated 10.03.2010 of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If representation dated 10.03.2010 is not received by the respondent, he shall treat the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition as representation and act accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.25252 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 20.10.2010 ES Note:- Issue CC in (5) days. ES