THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.21635 of 2010 Date : 6-9-2010 Between: Anaparthi Veerabhadra Rao S/o.A.D.V.V.V. Prasada Rao .. Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Mangena Sreerama Rao Counsel for respondents : A.G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.21635 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 9-8-2010 and not issuing the certificate to the effect that the lands in R.S.No.256/1A, 257/1, 258/1, 259/1, 264/3 and 265/3 of Vemuluru village, Kovvur Mandal, East Godavari District, are not wakf properties as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Ac.3-52 cents, situated in the above mentioned survey numbers. In the context of his obtaining loan and on the insistence of the Bank, the petitioner approached respondent No.2 to issue a certificate to the effect that the above mentioned lands do not belong to Wakf Board. Respondent No.2 has replied vide his proceedings dated 3-8- 2010 stating that the original R.S.R., T.D. No.48 shows that the lands were registered as “Arungabad Takiya Satram Maintenance and Mahammadian Batasarula Takiya Navukhariki gannu”. On the basis of the said record, respondent No.2 expressed his inability to issue the certificate as desired by the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, petitioner’s counsel submitted a fresh representation on 9-8-2010 substantiating the petitioner’s claim with reference to various details mentioned therein and requested for reconsideration of the opinion of respondent No.2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said representation was received by respondent No.2, he has not examined the same and taken action thereon as requested by the petitioner. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner while fairly conceding that there is no statutory obligation on respondent No.2 to issue the certificate, as the custodian of the revenue record, this certificate is being insisted on by the Banks and financial agencies. He therefore submitted that the respondent No.2 may be directed to reconsider his opinion and if it is found that the lands do not belong to the Wakf Board, he may be directed to issue a certificate. Though, in strict sense, as conceded by the learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 has no statutory obligation to issue the certificate, in view of the difficulty expressed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the petitioner’s representation and communicate his revised opinion to him. If respondent No.2 is satisfied that the fresh material placed by the petitioner through his representation referred to above shows that the properties do not belong to Wakf Board, he may give a certificate to that effect. If the petitioner disputes the revised opinion to be given by respondent No.2, he shall be free to approach the Civil Court or Wakf Tribunal, as the case may be for appropriate relief. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, W.P.M.P.No.27514/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 6-9-2010 AM