IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17824 of 2005 Between: N.K.K.Chary,S/o. Sampathkumara Charyulu,Rep.by GPA's T.Gangapatnam Seshaiah,S/o. Subrahmanyam R/o. 13/410 Pokurivari Street, Chinna Bazar, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer Chittoor District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer Renigunta Chittoor district. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.MUNI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in not disposing of the claim petition filed under Section 11(a) of the E.A.Act, D.Dis/20240/96 (SO., NLR.F/1558/88) as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and further declaring the action of the second respondent in assigning the schedule lands of the petitioner to third parties as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as well as violative of provisions of E.A. Act, 1948.” At the hearing, Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after filing of this writ petition, the petitioner’s application for grant of ryotwari patta was rejected by respondent No.1, that against the said order, the petitioner approached the revisional authority-Director of Settlement, A.P., Hyderabad, by way of a revision and pending the revision, the revisional authority by order dated 19-04-2008 granted stay of all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioner. He further stated that in view of the subsequent events, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WVMP.No.1038 of 2008 and WPMP.No.22697 of 2005 are dismissed as infructuous. _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt:07.07.2008 Usd