THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8759 of 2002 Date: 13.02.2008 Between: Eswaravaka Subbarami Reddy and others … Petitioners AND The Divisional Forest Officer, Nellore and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8759 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening the petitioners to remove the Aqua Ponds, paddy crop etc., in the lands belonging to the petitioners in Survey Nos.427, 493-4, 512, 493-2, 493-6 and 493-8 of Aruru Village, Chitamur Mandal, Nellore District, as illegal and arbitrary. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is averred as under: “4. In this connection, it is humbly submit that, the respondents never threatened the petitioners. We have only informed them that necessary action would be taken as per the Forest Act, if anybody enters and encroaches the Reserve Forest. It was done only as a precautionary measure as the area in their possession is adjacent to the Reserve Forest areas. It does not amount to harassment as alleged in the affidavit. There is absolutely no interference with the activity of the petitioners. Therefore, the contention raised in the affidavit is not correct. 5. It is humbly submitted that the Reserve Forest in Arur village with reference to the notification of Arur, Vatlur and Kalagurthipadu Forest blocks (declared as Reserve Forests) published in the State Gazette dated 19th September, 1968 were survey. But, none of the areas in the survey Nos. i.e., Area Ac.3.00 in S.Nos.427, extent Ac.2.30 cents in S.No.493.4 extent Ac.2.00 in S.No.512, extent Ac.0.50 cents in S.No.493-2, Ac.0.45 cents in S.No.493.6, Ac.2.60 cents in S.No.493.8 of Arur village, Chittamur Mandal, Nellore District do not come under Reserve Forest. Therefore, there is no interference of the Forest Officials in the Petitioners lands.” Having regard to the above reproduced averments of respondent No.2, I am satisfied that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. However, liberty is given to the petitioners to avail the remedies, in the event the respondents seek to interfere with the possession of their lands, which are subject matter of this writ petition. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.10872 of 2002 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni