ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“……to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in failing to delete the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.9.75cents in Sy.Nos.127/6, 127/7, 127/9 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh from the prohibited list under Section 22A of the Registration Act, belonging to the Petitioners and further failing to consider the Representation of the Petitioners herein Dt 25.09.2023 herein as illegal, arbitrary contrary to law Violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of the Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and in contravention of the provisions of the Registration Act 1908, contrary to the Provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1971 and consequently Direct the Respondents to delete the lands admeasuring an extent of Ac 9 75cents in Sy.Nos.127/6, 127/7, 127/9 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh from the list of prohibited properties under Section 22A of the Registration Act 1908 and pass….”

2. The short grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that, the authorities concerned are not deleting the petitioner’s land to an extent of AcAc.9.75 cents in Sy.no.127/6, 127/7, 127/9 of Madhurawada Village, Visakhapatnam, from the prohibitory list under Section 22A of the Registration Act, in spite of petitioner’s representation dated 25.09.2023,.

3. Heard Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Dilip, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

4. Learned counsel in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, in spite of making representation dated 25.09.2023, the authorities are not considering the petitioner’s representation and not deleting the petitioner’s subject property from the prohibitory list. As such, filed the present Writ Petition.

He further submitted that, in fact the petitioner has made an application through Mee-seva for deletion of the subject property from the prohibitory list, but the same was not accepted. The petitioner once again filed a manual representation dated 25.09.2023. He prayed that, it would suffice for the time being if a direction is given to the authority concerned to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law in a time bound manner.

5. On the other hand, Sri K.Dilip, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on written instructions dated 08.11.2023, submitted that, on considering the representation made by the petitioner, the Thasildar has uploaded application in Mee-seva website vide application No.TTA012300115050. The said receipt is placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same. However, sought three (03) months time to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application.

6. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the names of the petitioner are not tallying with the names mentioned in the receipt that has been placed on record by the learned Assistant Government Pleader and prayed that, a direction may be given to the concerned Collector to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 25.09.2023.

7. Perused the record.

8. In the receipt which is placed on record, the names are not tallying with the petitioner’s name in the present writ petition. However, the authorities have admitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation and they are inclined to consider the same in accordance with law.

9. Taking the submission of both the learned counsel into consideration, there is no purpose in keeping the Writ Petition pending and inviting counter. As such, with consent of both the learned counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by passing the following order:

“The 2nd respondent-Di