IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12670 of 2004 Between: 1 A.Kailash Reddy @ Aiyalu Reddy, S/o Murugareddy, R/o M.S.V.M.Puram, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District 2 A.Subramanyam Reddy, S/o Kailasa Reddy, R/o M.S.V.M.Puram, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District 3 A.Dhanamma, W/o Kailasa Reddy, R/o M.S.V.M.Puram, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, AP Hyderabad 2 The Joint Collector, Chittoor 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nindra Chittoor District 5 Chemarthi Bakkaraju, S/o Chengalraju, R/o M.S.V.M.Puram, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, particularly a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of lands in S.No.149/2, 3,4 measuring an extent of Ac.1-60, 1-60 adn 1-65 of Samayapuram Village of Nindra Mandal, pending appeal in CCLA's Ref.No.BCW3/185/2004 on the file of the first respondent filed against D.Dis.E2/7561/01 dated 15-3-2004 of Joint Collector, Chittoor Counsel for the Petitioner:MRSURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the admission stage made the following Order: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents. The petitioners were assigned Ac.1.60, 1.60 and 1.65 in Sy.No.149/2,3,4 through DKT No.67,68, 69/4/1402 respectively. Later on the said assignment was cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer on………… Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, which was dismissed on 15-3- 2004. Pending the appeal, the Joint Collector stayed the consequential proceedings pursuant to the cancellation of the assignment. Aggrieved by the dismissal, all the petitioners filed further appeal before the first respondent………