IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.872 of 2005 Between: Geddam Sudhakar & others. … Petitioners AND Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist., & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri Y. Sudhakar Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.872 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 direct the respondents not to assign the land of an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.188 of Mugalla Village, Sitanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District to third parties in pursuance of notice dated 01.12.2004 issued by respondent No.3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents published a notice in the village, wherein they have proposed to assign an extent of Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.188 which, according to them, is a part of tank. In the counter affidavit filed by the Tahsildar, Sitanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District, this allegation is denied. They have stated that land measuring Ac.5.66 cents in Sy.No.188 is classified as poramboke and on physical verification the major extent of land in Sy.No.188 was found to have fallen in R&B road leading from Muggulla to Korukonda, that a bit of Ac.1.21 cents remained on the right side besides R&B road, that an extent of Ac.0.12 cents was under encroachment of Sri Vegi Ramarao, S/o. Ryothu of Muggulla Village and that the remaining extent of Ac.1.09 cents was situated on ground as pit comprising extents of Ac.0.64 cents and Ac.0.45 cents. It is further stated that during the rainy season, the rain water fallen on the uplands of the vicinity reaches Ac.0.60 cents in RS.No.188 and in heavy floods and rains the total extent of pit gets submerged with water. It is further averred that in normal days Ac.0.45 cents of land covered by assignment in favour of respondent No.4 does not get submerged with water and that as the said land being neither a natural lake nor a notified tank, the same was assigned after calling for objections through A1 notice. It is further stated that the petitioners were given an opportunity to file objections to the said notice, but they have not chosen to avail the said opportunity. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is specifically averred that ‘D’ form patta was issued by respondent No.2 on 21.01.2005 and on the same day pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued and that the petitioners filed the writ petition and obtained status quo on 28.01.2005. From the prayer of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioners sought for appropriate direction not to assign the above land in question. But, respondent No.4 categorically asserted in her affidavit filed as far back as 17.06.2007 that on 20.01.2005 itself ‘D’ form patta and pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued. The writ petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit controverting the abovementioned fact. The petitioners failed to amend the writ petition to question grant of ‘D’ form patta granted in favour of respondent No.4. Hence, the writ petition, as it is conceived, has become infructuous. The writ petition is therefore dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to question the grant of patta in favour of respondent No.4 before the appropriate forum, if they so choose. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.1129 of 2005 and WVMP.No.1683 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 01.07.2008 ES