IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11325 of 2005 Between: 1 Kurre Surya Rao, S/o Late Sri Somanna, Hindu, 2 Kurre Rambabu, s/o Late Sri Gurraju, Hindu, 3 Kona Satyanarayana, S/o Late Sri Veerayya, Hindu, 4 Kona Subba Rao, S/o Late Sri Verayya, Hindu, (All the petitioners are Agriculturists and R/o Sankhavaram (V) (M), East Godavari District). ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad-22. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Sri Malleswara Swamy Vari Temple, Sankhavaram Village & Mandal, E.G. District, rep. by the Executive Officer of S.V.V.S. Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “In the circumstances stated above, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the third respondent in proposing to conduct auction of the leasehold rights of its land in S.No.247/1-2 of an extent of ac.5.52 cents in possession of the first petitioner and an extent of Acs.5.52 cents in S.No.247/1-2 in possession of the second petitioner and an extent of Acs.4.66 cents in S.No.14 in possession of the third and fourth petitioners situated in the Sankhavaram (V) & (M), E.G., District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard.” At the hearing, Sri K.K.Kishore, learned counsel representing Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP No.14511 of 2005 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 24th June, 2008 vrn