THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12128 of 2010 Date:19.07.2010 Between: Vusse Prasad. ..... Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Mangena Sree Rama Rao for Mr. Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Home Counsel for Respondent No.1: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in insisting on the petitioner to vacate his Church building and site admeasuring Acs.0.03 cents in R.S.No.25/3 of Tatiyakulagudem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claimed that his family owned the abovementioned property over which his forefathers constructed a Church for Lord Jesus; that over fifteen years back the petitioner reconstructed the Church with brick walls and tiled roof and that the Gram Panchayat and Mandal Revenue Officer, Jeelugumilli Mandal, have issued separate possession and enjoyment certificates. The petitioner averred that on 20.05.2010, respondent N.3 sent his two constables to the Church premises, who asked the petitioner to appear before respondent No.3 and accordingly the petitioner appeared before respondent No.3 and that respondent No.3 insisted on the petitioner to vacate the said property within a period of one week and handover possession to one D. Moses. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submitted that respondent No.3 neither sent constables to the petitioner as alleged nor he has insisted on the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that after filing the present writ petition, respondent No.3 changed his modus operandi by shifting his place of activity to a private place arranged by D. Moses and is still continuing to insist on the petitioner to vacate the premises at the instance of the said D. Moses and others. Having regard to the stand taken by respondent No.3 that he is not interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the abovementioned property and in the light of the allegations made by the petitioner, respondent No.3 is restrained from interfering with petitioner’s possession of the property in question through any means. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.15294 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th July, 2010 GHN