IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19240 of 2008 Between: 1 Sanchi Naramma, W/o. Subrahamanyam, R/o. Karaballavolu Village, Ozili Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Sanchi Ramanamma, W/o. Ramanaiah, R/o. Karaballavolu Village, Ozili Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Nellore District. 2 Tahsildar, Ozili Mandal, Ozili, Nellore District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.2 in preventing the petitioners from cultivating the land admeasuring Ac.1.50 cents each in Survey No.120-5P of Karaballavolu Village, Ozili Mandal, Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. The D-form pattas granted in favour of the petitioners, in respect of the above mentioned lands, in the year 1987 were cancelled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Ozili Mandal on 16- 09-2000. The said order was questioned by the petitioners in appeals before respondent No.1. The said appeals were allowed by respondent No.1 on the ground that the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer failed to give notice to the petitioners before cancelling the assignments and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry by his order dated 31-12-2001. The petitioners speciﬁcally asserted that after the said remand, neither the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer nor the Tahsildar-respondent No.2 gave notices to them and passed fresh orders cancelling the assignments. They allege that while the assignments granted in their favour are subsisting, respondent No.2 has been seeking to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the assigned lands. Since the grievance of the petitioners is innocuous, I felt it not necessary for the respondents to ﬁle counter- aﬃdavits. If respondent No.2 or his predecessor-in-oﬃce has not passed an order cancelling the assignments granted in favour of the petitioners, after remand by respondent No.1, he has no power or jurisdiction to interfere with the enjoyment of the said lands by the petitioners. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ assigned lands so long as the assignments granted in their favour are not cancelled. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.25101 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 5th September, 2008 vrn