HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 11592 of 2001 Between: Gudivakalanka Cooperative Collective Farming Society, Rep. by its President Jayamangala Anjaneyulu, Gudivakalanka, Eluru Rural Mandal … Petitioner And The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District & others … Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri C. Ramachandra Raju Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue October 22, 2007 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ In this petition, the petitioner has made the following substantive prayer: “ Under these circumstances, it is just and necessary in the interests of justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to – (1)issue an order or direction, more in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner-society to form bunds around its lands admeasuring an extent of Ac.281-24 cents situated in Survey Nos. 362, 366, 367/2, 368 to 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 380, 683/2 to 687, 688/2 to 690, 691 to 694, 717 to 729, 734 to 737, 740, 741, 747 to 749, 750, 751, 752, 754, 755 to 758 and 768 of Gudivakalanka Village, Eluru Rural Mandal, West Godavari District, by declaring that the action of the respondents in interfering with the right of the petitioner- society to form bunds around the said land is highly arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (2)To direct the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner-society to form bunds around its land dig fish tanks in their own lands admeasuring an extent of admeasuring an extent of Ac.281-24 cents situated in Survey Nos. 362, 366, 367/2, 368 to 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 380, 683/2 to 687, 688/2 to 690, 691 to 694, 717 to 729, 734 to 737, 740, 741, 747 to 749, 750, 751, 752, 754, 755 to 758 and 768 of Gudivakalanka Village, Eluru Rural Mandal, West Godavari District pending disposal of the above writ petition.” Learned counsel for the petitioner says that the writ petition has become infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition as infructuous, W.P.M.P.No. 14366 of 1998 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also disposed of as infructuous. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ G. ROHINI, J October 22, 2007 ksld