IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8059 of 2008 Between: C.H.Venkata Ramana S/o.Rama Rao R/o.Mopidevi village and Mandal Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director, Appeals of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam Krishna District 3 The District Panchayat officer, Machilipatnam Krishna District 4 Mikkilineni Madhu S/o.Papa Rao Daaliparru village, Ghantasala Mandal Krishna District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or orders direction or directions writ or writs more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not collecting the lease amounts from the 4th respondent covered under 3rd respondents notice in RC.No.709/01/P7 dated 21.9.2004 is illegal, arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.L.N.SWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.8059 of 2008 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. The petitioner claims to be a member of Village Development Committee, Mopidevi Village and Mandal, Krishna District. He filed the present writ petition aggrieved by the action of the third respondent in not collecting the lease amount to the tune of Rs.16,99,245/- covered under notice, dated 21.09.2004 from the fourth respondent, who is the lessee for the sand reach Kokkiligadda for the period 01.10.2000 to 30.09.2001. When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that questioning the consequential proceedings of the District Collector, dated 28.07.2007, the fourth respondent filed a revision and the same was dismissed. Thereupon, he filed a writ petition before this Court, which was also dismissed. Against the same, he filed W.A.No.1797 of 2008, wherein this Court granted stay of all further proceedings pursuant to proceedings, dated 28.07.2007, subject to payment of half of the amount demanded under the said proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of pendency of the writ appeal, the third respondent is unable to recover the amount. Since the writ appeal preferred by the fourth respondent against the recovery of the amount in question is pending before a Division Bench of this Court, this Court cannot interfere with the matter or give any directions to the third respondent for recovery of the amount. The relief as sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:09.06.2009 VGB