IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15428 of 2005 Between: The Sri Rama B.C. Salt Workers Industrial Cooperative Society Ltd., East Gogulapalli Village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District & others. … Petitioners AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Allur Mandal, Nellore District. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Sri P. Sridhar Reddy Counsel for the respondent : AGP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15428 of 2005 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from an extent of Ac.54.39 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.461 (Sub-division Nos.879 to 884 and 886) of East Gogulapalli Village, Allur Mandal, Nellore District, pending the proposals with the Government for grant of long term lease in favour of petitioner No.1 society, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition is based on the fact that the proposals for grant of lease of the land to petitioner No.1 society for salt cultivation pending before the Government and even before they were finalized, respondent No.1 was seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the land. He pointed out that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that Government by its Memo dated 21.09.2006 approved the proposal for cancellation of lease proposals and that so far such an order has not been served on the petitioners. He stated that the purported cancellation was not in the knowledge of the petitioners and for the first time, the same is revealed in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. He further stated that in view of the abovementioned fact pleaded by the respondent, the cause in the writ petition, as it is conceived, does not survive for consideration and the petitioners may be given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings to question Memo dated 21.09.2006. Having regard to the abovementioned submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.19590 of 2005 and WVMP.No.170 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.07.2008 ES