IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Orignal Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25368 of 2001 Between: Kotagiri Rama Rao ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Mandal Revenue Officer 2. The Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records. 3. Ravuri TIrupathamma 4. Bogini Raghavulu 5. Bogini Srinivasa Rao ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR T.L.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR MR MR.K.RANGA RAO Counsel for respondents 1 and 2: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondents 3 to 5: MS.PADMA SHARANAPPA FOR MR B.NALIN KUMAR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare panchanama dated 09-11-2001, whereunder possession of the land admeasuring Acs.13.07 gts in Survey Nos.193 and 626 of Jagannadhapuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Khammam District was delivered to respondents 3 to 5, as illegal and void. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.1, he, inter alia, stated as under- “In reply to para 6 of the affidavit, it is submitted that it is a fact that assignees made a petition to Mandal Revenue Officer on 12-09-2001 with a request to give police protection. On the petition, the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer has orally instructed the Mandal Revenue Inspector to show their land. Accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Inspector has conducted panchanama on 09- 11-2001. On the panchanama, the writ petitioner has ﬁled a writ and the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in W.P.No.32096 of 2001 by order dated 13-12- 2001 suspended the panchanama, therefore the possession of the land is restored to the writ petitioner on 03-01-2002 under cover of panchanama.” In view of this stand taken by respondent No.1 in the counter-aﬃdavit, which discloses that the possession of the petitioner regarding the above mentioned land was restored on 03-01-2002, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in the event any part of his land is taken away by respondent No.1 in future, without following due process of law. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 23rd September, 2008 vrn