IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5971 of 2005 Between: R.Appalanarasimha Raju, s/o Narasimha Raju, Poduru, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsapur, West Godavari District. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Palakol, West Godavari District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Poduru, West Godavari District. 5 Katta Bhulakshmi, w/o Nagoor, Ambativari Cheruvu, H/o Poduru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 4 in proposing to assign the land situated in R.S.No.83 and 84 of Gummaluru Village, Poduru Mandal, West Godavari District to the 5th respondent without taking into consideration of the grievances and objections raised by the petitioner and without any manner of right by depriving the petitioner and other ryots to use the said land for their agricultural operations as illegal, arbitrary and unjust.” At the hearing Sri M.Janardhana Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri T.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, submitted that the application of respondent No.5 for grant of patta in respect of the land in question is still pending with respondent No.4 and that suit and counter suit filed by the petitioner and respondent No.5 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Eluru are pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the pendency of the civil suits and the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3 that respondent No.4 has no power and jurisdiction to grant patta in favour of respondent No.5 as the land is vested in the Irrigation Department, the petitioner does not intend to pursue this writ petition. In view of this submission of the learned counsel, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as not pressed, WPMP No.7921 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 24th June, 2008 vrn