IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18757 of 2005 Between: A. Venkayyamma & others. … Petitioners AND The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: GP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18757 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in preventing respondent Nos.3 to 11 from unauthorized occupation of the lands comprised in Sy.Nos.231/1B, 213/1F, 213/1I, 213/1H, 213/1K, 208/1, 215/1, 201/1, 204/1A, 203/5 belonging to the petitioners, residents of D.L. Puram Grampanchayat, Nakkapalli Mandal, as arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. WVMP.No.820 of 2006 is filed to vacate interim order dated 25.08.2005 passed in WPMP.No.23859 of 2005 in WP.No.18757 of 2005. By order dated 25.08.2005, this Court directed respondent No.2 to take appropriate action to prevent respondent Nos.3 to 11 from unauthorizedly entering and encroaching into the petitioners’ lands. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the allegation that respondent Nos.3 to 5 approached him to dispossess the petitioners is denied. He also maintained that the respondents have not cancelled the assignment granted in favour of the original assignees till today. He also stated that after receipt of the representations of the petitioners, respondent No.2 addressed letter dated 24.10.2005 to the Station House Officer, Nakkapalli to give protection in respect of the assigned lands, if any third party tries to interfere with their lands. He also stated that he directed his Panchayat Secretary to keep a watch whether any one including respondent Nos.4 to 12 interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the assignees property. Having regard to the contents of the counter affidavit, it is clear that interim order dated 25.08.2005 worked itself out and the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioners to avail their remedy, if their possession is threatened by any of the respondents, without following due process of law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.23859 of 2005 and WVMP.No.820 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.06.2008 ES