IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.13078 of 2009 Between: Naradasu Nageswaramma and three others ..... PETITIONERS AND The State of AP, rep. By Principal Secretary, Animal husbandry, Dairy Development 7 Fisheries (F.II) Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hydeabad and ten others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This court issued Rule nisi on 01-07-2009 and in W.P.M.P.No.16931 of 2009 granted interim direction as prayed for. Respondents 4 to 11 in the writ petition filed W.V.M.P.No.2177 of 2009 to vacate the interim order. The second respondent filed counter affidavits, Reply affidavit also had been filed. Sri Rajashekar, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners had pointed out to the relief prayed for in the writ petition, the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the copies of G.O.Ms.Nos.83 and 18 as well, the copies of the representations and further pointed out to the averments made by the second respondent in para 8 of the counter affidavit, in particular, and also further pointed out to the stand taken by the un-official respondents in the counter affidavit filed along with W.V.M.P.No.2177 of 2009 and the stand taken in the reply affidavit as well. The learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the specific stand taken in the counter affidavit of the second respondent since the relief prayed for has been granted, the writ petition may be disposed of in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2. The learned AGP for Revenue would maintain that inasmuch as the request made by the writ petitioners already had been complied with, no further orders need be passed in the present writ petition. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, the learned counsel representing the un- official respondents had stated that the writ petition may be disposed by recording the contents of the counter affidavit, the assurance and the undertaken given and would maintain that if the same is not recorded no further steps may be taken by the Government in this regard and in a way the un-official respondents may be driven to yet another litigation and to put an end to the controversy, it may be appropriate to record appropriate findings inclusive of the said assurance and undertaking given by the writ petitioners. Heard the counsel. The writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of respondent No.3 in marking the land owned by the petitioners for digging fresh water aqua-culture units at the instance of respondents No.4 to 11 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to mark the land owned by the petitioners for the purpose of digging for setting up of fresh water aquaculture units in terms of Proceeding No.1884/C/2007, dated 30-08-2008 of the 2nd respondent. The averments in detail have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition from paras 2 to 14. The second respondent filed counter affidavit and no doubt it is true that in para 8 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the peg marking of Ac.18.42 cents owned by the writ petitioners had been done on 22-07-2009 by the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Nandivada in the presence of writ petitioners 1 to 3, the Tahsildar, Nandivada Mandal Revenue Inspector, Nandiwada, Village Revenue Officer and Police. A statement was recorded from the writ petitioners 1 to 3 and the said request of writ petitioners was fulfilled. A copy of the statement recorded from Smt.Naradasu Nageswaramma, Naradasu Venkata Ramana Rao and Naradasu Sambasiva Rao and another had been placed before this court wherein a promise had been made that they will leave six meters from their patta land and two meters for drainage bodi while digging fish tank. The averments in detail had been made along with W.V.M.P.No.2177 of 2009. No doubt the said averments further had been denied by filing a reply affidavit. The main grievance of the writ petitioners is to the effect that even if it is to be taken as an assurance or an undertaking, as the case may be, it is for the Government to initiate appropriate action thereafter and the un-official respondents cannot make out a grievance out of it especially in a writ petition filed by the writ petitioners. The grievance of the un-official respondents, who filed W.V.M.P.No.2177 of 2009 is to the effect that instead of further driving these parties to yet another litigation, it would be just and proper to dispose of this writ petition with appropriate directions. The relief prayed for in writ petition already had been stated supra. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit of respondent No.2 also had been referred to above. The statement recorded from the writ petitioners and the enclosures thereafter also had been referred to in para 8 of the counter affidavit. In the light of the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that inasmuch as the relief prayed for by the writ petitioners had been substantially complied with in the light of the specific stand taken in the counter of respondent No.2, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cots. However, it is made clear that respondents 4 to 11, the un- official respondents who filed W.V.M.P.No.2177 of 2009 are at liberty to invoke appropriate remedy in the event of non-compliance of the assurance and the undertaking given by the writ petitioners. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J September 2, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.13078 of 2009 September 2, 2009