Mekala Ramanaiah, S/O. Late Chinnaiah, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR WRI T PETI TI ON No.2028 OF 2016 ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1, 3 to 6 and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 2 and 7. With their consent, the present writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

2.

The present writ petition came to be filed with the following prayer:

"to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No. 4, 5 and 7 for obstructing the petitioner from the land in possession and not making proper enquiry over the above said lands and failed to receive the Cist and consider the representations, dated 07.12.2015 and 08.12.2015 in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac 0-63 cents in Sy No. 877-D2 and land admeasuring to an extent of Ac 2-78 cents in Sy No. 881 of Vavveru Village, Bucchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the representations, dated 07.12.2015 and 08.12.2015 in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac 0-63 cents in Sy No. 877-D2 and land admeasuring to an extent of Ac 2-78 cents in Sy No. 881 of Vavveru Village, Bucchireddypalem Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and made proper enquiry over the above said lands."

CPK,J WP_2028_2016 3.

Though various grounds are raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the land belongs to the petitioner, the authorities are not accepting the cist, hence seeks a direction to the authorities to accept the cist.

4.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that question of accepting cist would not arise as the name of the petitioner is not mutated in the revenue records.

5.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an online application on 30.11.2015 seeking mutation of his name in the revenue records. Hence, he submits that a direction may be given to the 4th respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner for mutation of his name. 6.

Having regard to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner, if the same is still pending consideration, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and also the aggrieved persons, if any, as early as possible preferably within a period of four (04) weeks. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTI CE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR Date:15.11.2016 INL