IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:25672 of 2002 Between: Ghanto Mallikeswar S/o. Late Appanna R/o. D.No. 9-35, Adivivaram Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District ..... PETITIONER AND The Executive Officer Sri Varaha Lakhsmi Narsimha Devasthanam Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. SIVA PRASAD FOR MR.M.KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent in receiving the amount as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.578, Revenue (Endt.IV) Department, dated 19.08.2000 from the petitioner and issue no objection/land regularisation certiﬁcate for the land admeasuring 1308.96 sq.yards (27 cents) comprised in old Survey No.193/11 (old) 193/14 (New) of Adivivaram Village, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to receive the amount under the said G.O. and issue no objection/land regularisation certificate. Heard Sri Siva Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri M.Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that though G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.08.2000 provides for regularisation of the occupation of the lands belonging to the respondent and the petitioner approached the respondent to accept the amounts prescribed in the said G.O. and regularize his possession, the respondent has not acted upon the said request of the petitioner. At the hearing, Sri M.Adinarayana Raju, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent placed before this Court G.O.Ms.Nos.1350 and 253, dated 26.12.2003 and 03.03.2005, respectively, a perusal of which shows that the term of the Regularisation Committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.578 was extended in G.O.Ms.Nos.1350 and 128. However, G.O.Ms.No.253, dated 03.03.2005, superseded the previous G.O.s with a view to expedite the long pending issues relating to regularisation of encroachment/occupation of the lands of the respondent Devasthanam and constituted a separate Committee. It is directed in the said G.O. that the Committee should complete the task entrusted to it within a period of three (3) months from the date of its constitution and the Commissioner of Endowments after obtaining recommendations of the Committee, shall exercise the powers vested in him under Section 89 of the Act and act strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the time stipulated for submission of the report by the Committee expired long time back and that no report is submitted by the Committee. From the facts noted above, it is clear that as of now, there does not appear to be any move for regularisation of the unauthorized occupation of the lands of the respondent. As G.O.Ms.No.578 was superseded as noted above, it is not possible for this Court to give any direction as claimed by the petitioner to the respondent to act in accordance with the said G.O., which ceased to exist. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to revive his request for regularisation as and when the State Government resumes its efforts to find amicable settlement. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, interim order, dated 30.12.2002 is vacated and WPMP.No.32423 of 2002 is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th NOVEMBER, 2008. kvni