THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21083 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of mandamus to declare the action of the fourth respondent in not taking steps to protect his land admeasuring Ac.0.96 cents, Ac.0.23 cents, Ac.1.05 cents and Ac.1.36 cents covered by Survey Nos.569-8, 566- 11, 566-14 and 565-10 respectively situated at Kesavapuram Village, Garladinne Mandal, Anantapur District, in the light of the letter bearing RC.No.572/08, (C), dated 17.09.2009, addressed to him by the third respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that he is the owner and possessor of the land referred to above. It is stated that the said land was assigned to the petitioner by the third respondent vide proceedings bearing D.A.Dis.No.72/1411, dated 30.03.2002 and since then, he is in actual and physical possession of the same. It is further stated that questioning the assignment granted to him, the fifth respondent carried the matter by way of appeal before the second respondent, who in turn, vide his proceedings bearing D.Dis.D2/1135/2007, dated 19.04.2008, while clearly recording a finding that the petitioner is in possession of the land assigned to him and he developed the land by spending huge amounts and brought into cultivation, dismissed the same. It is also stated that the said order is confirmed by the first respondent. During pendency of the proceedings before the first respondent, when there was interference by the fifth respondent, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15350 of 2008. This Court by order, dated 11.08.2008, while disposing of the writ petition, issued directions to the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the fifth respondent and to maintain status quo with regard to possession. At that point of time, as there was further interference by the fifth respondent, the petitioner approached the third respondent, who in turn, appears to have addressed letter bearing Rc.No.572/08(C), dated 17.09.2009 to the fourth respondent to take action in the light of the order passed by this Court. Though no counter-affidavit is filed, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent that the petitioner is not residing in the Village and there were instructions not to interfere with his possession over the land in question. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the fifth respondent. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that there is no protection granted by the fourth respondent, it is the case of the fourth respondent that the petitioner is not residing in the Village and there were instructions not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question. I have perused the order, dated 19.04.2008, in which, the second respondent clearly recorded a finding that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner by way of assignment and it was developed by him and brought into cultivation. As much as the assignment granted to the petitioner was confirmed in view of dismissal of appeal and revision petition by the second and first respondents respectively, I deem it appropriate to direct that if there is interference by the fifth respondent with the land of the petitioner, the fourth respondent shall prevent the same by extending possible protection to retain the possession of the petitioner over the land assigned to him. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th JULY, 2010. kvni