IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19856 of 2008 Between: B. Venkateswara Reddy, S/o. B. Venkata Reddy, Kurnool. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool,. Kurnool District. 3 The Tahsildar, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 4 Somisetty Venkateswarlu S/o. Venkata Subbaiah R/o. Opp. Raj Theatre,Kurnool, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in not discharging their statutory duties in protecting and preserving the valuable Government land against the illegal encroachment despite receiving the report in Rc No. 150/A/1999 dt. 29-6-1999 from the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kurnool, as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the Provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) and to grant Such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Chilamkuri Hanumantha Rayudu Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Government Pleader for Assignment Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri V. Srinivas The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this public interest litigation, it has been submitted that valuable government land had been encroached upon and in spite of the said fact, no action has been taken by the concerned official respondents. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 – the District Collector, Kurnool admitting the fact that there are some encroachments on the government land, but the same have been removed and the land in question has been taken back by the government authorities. 3. From the above fact, it is clear that appropriate action has been taken by the government authorities and, therefore, no further action is required in the matter. 4. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15th July, 2009 ks