THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.17438 of 2011 Between: Goteti Uma Maheswara Mrutyunjaya. PETITIONER And 1. District Panchayat Officer, Visakhapatnam, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner Sri S. Sridhar Counsel for the respondent No.1: G.P. for P.R. Counsel for the respondent No.2: Sri G. Elisha Counsel for the respondent No.3: G.P. for Revenue Counsel for the respondent No.4: Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition has been filed complaining inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in stopping the alleged illegal construction undertaken by respondents 4 and 5. According to the petitioner he is the owner of an extent of Ac.0.12 cents of land situated in S.No.251/2 and 253 in M.Alamanda Village, Devarapally Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The 4th and 5th respondents are said to have purchased a site to the East of the said land. But they illegally started making construction by encroaching the site of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S.No.399 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the land in S.No.251/2, which was decreed ex parte on 12.08.2008. It is on the premise that the suit was decreed in his favour in relation to the land situated in S.No.251/2, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The 4th respondent has filed counter affidavit along with a petition to vacate the interim order stating that he is the owner of the land situated in S.No.253 in pursuance of a sale deed dated 9.07.2007. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is neither concerned with the land in S.No.253 nor is the suit instituted claiming any rights over the said land. It is also stated that the ex parte decree obtained by the petitioner was also set side by orders dated 11.08.2011. Indisputably, the decree, which has been obtained on the basis of this writ petition has been filed, no longer is in force as the same has been set aside. Even otherwise, the suit does not appear to have been filed challenging the rights of the 4th respondent in respect of the land situated in S.No.253. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 29th August, 2011. Js.