IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 486 of 2005 Between: Athikari Venkataiah, S/o. A. Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. Atikaripalem Street, Sidhout Village & Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Sidhout, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No. 1 in passing orders in Ref.Est/4221/2003,dt.17- 01-2004 ordering to maintain status quo of the 'Rasta' in Sy.No. 237/3 of Vanthatipalli Village, Sidhout Mandla, Kadapa District which is the petitioner's private patta land without notice, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to principles of natural justice and consequently call for the records and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT P.VIJAYALAXMI FOR SMT.N.SHOBA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.486 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order, dated 17.01.2004, passed by respondent No.1. 2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that on the report of the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Sidhout, respondent No.1 ordered to maintain status quo of the Rastha passing through Sy.No.237/3 of Vanthatipalli Village of Sidhout Mandal. It is further stated in the said order that as the dispute is under examination as per the rules, the owner of the land shall maintain status quo of the Rastha. 3. Even according to the contents of the impugned order, the petitioner is the owner of the land in respect of which the order of status quo has been granted. Neither in the impugned order nor in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by respondent No.2, the power of respondent No.1 to direct maintenance of status quo has not been traced. Respondent No.1 is not vested with the power of a civil Court to grant an order of status quo in respect of the private land. Unless respondent No.1 is conferred with a statutory power, he cannot restrict the right of the owner of the property to enjoy his property. 4. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 28.08.2008 v v