IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 13474 of 2010 Between: Tamballa Yagnananda Prasad …PETITIONER AND The Additional Commissioner of Endowments and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13474 OF 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner herein claims to be the Archaka of Sri Eswara Swamy Temple, Kaminenipalli village Serivella Mandal, Allagadda Taluk, Kurnool District. It is claimed that the land in survey Nos.89, 198, 194, 33 and 34 to the extent of Ac.26.19 cents has been in possession of the petitioner for rendering the services of the temple. Alleging that the respondents 5 and 6 herein had forcibly taken possession of the said land and put the same to auction, the petitioner made a representation, dated 22.05.2010 requesting the second respondent -Assistant Commissioner of Endowments to take appropriate action. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the second respondent in considering the said representation, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.4. The material placed before this court shows that the petitioner’s representation was received in the office of the second respondent on 22.05.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Section 83 of the Act 30 of 1987, the second respondent is bound to consider the grievance of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion as to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Endowments, to consider the representation dated 22.05.2010 of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J JUNE 16, 2010 YVL