IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 23336 of 2014 BETWEEN Vemasani Suresh Babu and others AND ... PETITIONERS The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The relief sought for by the petitioners in the present writ petition is against inaction on the part of the respondents, particularly respondent No.3, in disposing of the petitioners’ representation, dated 31.07.2014, as illegal. It appears that there is a contest between the petitioners and respondent No.4 with respect to land to an extent of Ac.2-52 cents in Survey No.46/1A of Thanayali Village, Doravarisatram Mandal, Sullurpeta, SPSR Nellore District. With reference to the said dispute, petitioners appears to claim the right, title and interest and they have filed O.S.No.93 of 2014 against respondent No.4 before the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, seeking declaration, partition, and permanent injunction. Alleging that respondent No.4 is making efforts to make mutation over the said lands in his favour, petitioners gave legal notice, dated 31.07.2014, to respondent Nos.2 to 4. The present writ petition is, therefore, filed alleging inaction on the part of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in responding to the said legal notice.
3. When the writ petition was heard on 01.09.2014, it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner’s legal notice cannot be equated to a representation and hence, the relief sought for compelling the official respondents to respond to the said legal notice, dated 31.07.2014, cannot be entertained.
4. Learned counsel has thereafter sought amendment of the prayer by filing WPMP No.32174 of 2014, whereunder relief now sought for is with reference to consideration of petitioners’ representation, dated 18.08.2014, addressed to respondent No.3, Tahsildar.
5. Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, states that respondent No.4 has already filed a representation seeking mutation and grant of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. However, the revenue authorities have kept the said request in abeyance till the title dispute is finalised by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, in the suit, referred to above, and an endorsement to that effect is stated to have been given to the petitioners as well as respondent No.4 vide proceedings in Rc.B.No.324/14 dated 26.07.2014.
6. In view of the above, the petitioners’ apprehension that a mutation will be effected in favour of respondent No.4 is clearly without any basis and since the revenue authorities are themselves awaiting decision of the civil court in the suit, referred to above, no further orders are necessary.
Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
September 9, 2014 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J LMV