IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 21596 of 2008 Between: Sanapala Ramakrishna S/o. Ramanujayya R/o. D.No.39-18-5, Madhavadhara, Industrial Estate Post, Visakhapatnam-7. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer cum Competent Authority under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.747 Revenue dated 18.06.2008 the Notice issued in Ref.No.130/08 dated dated .07.2008 by the 2nd respondent and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents not to insist for payment of money for regularization. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.AKA.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Order: This Writ petition is ﬁled challenging the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent – Special Oﬃcer, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam directing the petitioner to ﬁle application under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008 for regularization of the unauthorized constructions made by him in the surplus urban land. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the writ petition is taken up for ﬁnal disposal at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in his possession is not surplus land and, therefore, there is no need for him to ﬁle application seeking regularization of his possession under G.O.Ms.No.747 dated 18.6.2008. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions submits that the impugned notice is issued only to create awareness in persons who are in possession of the surplus lands and there is no compulsion for the petitioner to avail the beneﬁt of the said Government Order. However, on instructions she submits that the respondents are withdrawing the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. In view of the above, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this writ petition. It is accordingly closed. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the respondents from initiating action against those persons who are found to be in possession of surplus land in accordance with law. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.30.9.2008 msv