HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20380 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioner, who claims to be a Trust, seeks direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not protecting the temple and surrounding land admeasuring Acs.8-35 guntas in Survey No.4 of Tettekunta Village, Vemulawada Mandal, Karimnagar District, as illegal. 2. Petitioner made a request on behalf of the Trust for allottment of the aforesaid land, which belongs to the Government. Earlier, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No.3081 of 2004 on the ground that their request was not being considered and this Court directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. Again, petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No.9742 of 2005 on the ground that it is in possession and enjoyment of the land and there is interference by third parties and no steps are being taken by the respondents. Even the said writ petition was also disposed of observing that if there is any interference, petitioner may approach the police concerned and lodge a complaint. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that some third parties are trying to encroach the subject land and no steps are being taken by the respondents. 3. On written instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that alienation proposals for an extent of Acs.6-35 guntas of land are pending for consideration and an extent of Acs.2-00 of land was already allotted to the house sites. It is also stated that with regard to the land, which is claimed by the petitioner, no advance possession was given to it. 4. As of now, except the proposals, there is no allottment or alienation in favour of the petitioner. 5. In view of the above, merely basing on the pendency of the proposal, time and again petitioner cannot rush to this Court by filing writ petition after writ petition. I am sure that if there are any attempts for encroachment of subject land, respondents will look into the matter and take steps, but at the same time on the application of the petitioner, no direction, as prayed for, can be granted. 6. Subject to above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J August 27, 2010. PV