THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.30419 of 1997 10.07.2006 Between: Sri Alappa ..Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Anantapur and others. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.30419 of 1997 ORDER: The petitioner alleges that his father purchased agricultural lands in survey Nos.305-4 (admeasuring Ac.0.54 cents), 306-8-A (admeasuring Acs.1.00), 342-1A (admeasuring Ac.0.54 cents), 311-2A (measuring Acs.1.50 cents) and 233-2A (admeasuring Acs.1.75 cents) situated at Narsambudi Village, Agali Mandal, Anantapur District. After the death of his father, the petitioner succeeded to the property and obtained pattadar passbooks and title deeds in 1996 from the second respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent made a representation to the second respondent to rectify the mistakes, as a result of which, an enquiry was initiated and a show cause notice, dated 09.04.1996, was issued and the petitioner was directed to appear before him for enquiry on 23.12.1996. After conducting the enquiry, the Mandal Revenue Officer rejected the representation of the third respondent, aggrieved by which, the third respondent preferred a revision petition before the first respondent. It was also dismissed on 25.04.1997, on the ground that the suit, being O.S.No.381 of 1996, filed by the petitioner on the file of the Court of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Hindupur, is pending. Curiously, the third respondent again filed another revision petition before the first respondent, which was allowed on 19.07.1997, setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, granting mutation proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. The Writ Petition was heard on 04.07.2006. To enable the learned counsel to submit regarding the latest position of the suit filed by the petitioner, the matter was adjourned. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the third respondent submit that the suit, being O.S.No.381 of 1996, filed for declaration of title by the petitioner, itself was dismissed. In view of the same, the cause of action does not survive. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.07.2006 GJ