IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:17117 of 2003 Between: Battini Ramana Reddy, S/o. Subbareddy R/o. Rebala Village, Buchireddipalem Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., rep. by its Principle Secretary,Revenue (Endowments), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Vedagriri Lakshminarasimha Swamy rep. by its Executive Officer, Nellore Rural Mandal, Vari Devasthanam, Narasimhakonda, Nellore District. 3 The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Nellore, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. K.RAMAMOHAN MAHADEVA FOR MR.I.NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 3:AGP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. V.T.M.PRASAD The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to invalidate notice, dated 27.07.2003 issued by respondent No.2 proposing to conduct auction of leasehold rights of land admeasuring Ac.1.55 cents in Survey Nos.19, 21, 533, 535, 537 and 539 of Rebala Village, Buchireddipalem Mandal, Nellore District. Heard Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record. By the impugned notiﬁcation, respondent No.2 proposed to auction the leasehold rights of the above- mentioned land for a period of three (3) years. By order, dated 14.08.2003, this Court while permitting the auction to go on, granted stay of its conﬁrmation. The said order was modiﬁed by order, dated 05.01.2004 by continuing the interim stay, subject to the petitioner paying arrears of rent. Since the proposed lease period expired in 2006, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. Sri V.T.M.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner’s lease period expired and that he converted the agricultural lands into ﬁshponds and, therefore, he is not entitled to be in possession of the land. The scope of this writ petition is limited to examining the validity or otherwise of the public auction proposed by respondent No.2. As the writ is being dismissed as infructuous, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the above-mentioned issue raised by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner’s lease period expired, respondent No.2 shall be free to take appropriate action in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.35645 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni