Order : B.KRISHNA MOHAN, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in W.P. No.22660 of 2020 seeks a direction to mutate her name in the revenue records to an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.151/2, Ac.0.53 cents in Sy.No.154/1, 2.37 cents in Sy.No.157/1, Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.157/3A and Ac.3.31 cents in Sy.No.198/2C in total an extent of Ac.7.00 cents situated at Peddetivakal village, Rachapalem Mandal, Chittoor District. The other petitioner in W.P. No.22661 of 2020 seeks a direction to mutate her name in the revenue records in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.39 cents in Sy.No.157/3A situated at Peddetivakal Village, Rachapalem Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, without giving an opportunity and without considering the documents of the petitioners viz., the pattadar passbooks, the subject lands were treated as dotted lands and without paying ex-gratia amount to the petitioners they were alienated to the APIIC. He further submits that the representations of the petitioners submitted earlier to the said impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 05.09.2020 were not considered. 4. On the other hand, the learned respondent counsels submit that the 3rd respondent passed a detailed impugned order dated 05.09.2020 wherein discussed all the cases of the individuals in respect of the subject lands situated in Peddetivakal village, Rachapalem Mandal, Chittoor District. So far as these two petitioners are concerned, the relevant paragraphs in the said impugned order dated 05.09.2020 are at serial Nos.33 & 34. According to it, notice was issued framing the charges as shown in the table given in the said impugned order in respect of the subject lands claimed by the petitioner in W.P. No.22660 of 2020 and the said table is reproduced as under: 5. Though the petitioner gave explanation stating that she got the lands vide registered settlement deed No.944/1991 dated 30.11.1991 executed by her father K.Chalapathi Naidu S/o K.Rama Naidu and she got pattadar passbook in the year 1996, she has not filed any documentary proof in support of her claim. Though the petitioner gave explanation stating that she got the lands vide registered settlement deed No.944/1991 dated 30.11.1991 executed by her father K.Chalapathi Naidu S/o K.Rama Naidu and she got pattadar passbook in the year 1996, she has not filed any documentary proof in support of her claim. As per the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati dated 30.04.2020, 01.06.2020, 30.06.2020 and 05.09.2020, it was noted that the lands in question are classified as dotted lands and they were treated as government lands and some of the lands were covered by the neighbouring state people and for some parcels of the land the DKT pattas were given to the landless poor people and as such they were not shown in the prohibited properties list under Section 22(a)(i) of Registration Act. The sale transactions took place and the lands in some of the sub-divisions in Sy.No.156/1, 157/1 and 198/2 were already alienated to the Zonal Manager, APIIC, Tirupati as per G.O.Ms.No.1111 Revenue Department dated 16.09.2008 on payment of exgratia. It was observed in the said impugned proceedings dated 05.09.2020 by the 3rd respondent that the subject lands were given to APIIC as they are basically dotted lands but granted on assignment to landless poor persons, which were taken back on payment of exgratia to the assignees. 6. Similarly, the case of the other petitioner in W.P.No.22661 of 2020 wherein basing upon the explanation submitted by him and as he failed to produce any documentary proof in support his claim and basing upon the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati dated 30.04.2020, 01.06.2020, 30.06.2020 and 05.09.2020 the subject lands in Sy.Nos.156, 157, 198 of Peddaetipakam village in Satyavedu Mandal classified as dotted lands by treating them as government lands along with some other sub-divisions of the survey numbers were assigned but they were taken back on payment of exgratia to alienate to the APIIC. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners herein submits that, no exgratia amount was paid to the petitioners. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is not furnished to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners made individual representations on 13.11.2025 also to the 2nd respondent/ the District Collector, Chittoor and the same is pending. 8. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners herein submits that, no exgratia amount was paid to the petitioners. The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer is not furnished to the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners made individual representations on 13.11.2025 also to the 2nd respondent/ the District Collector, Chittoor and the same is pending. 8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and dispose of the said representations of the petitioners dated 13.11.2025 strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners, giving due opportunity, after verification of the records and the subject lands, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 9. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. Interim order if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.