IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1308 of 2006 Between: Telugu Jayanna, s/o Maddileti, r/o Chinna Devalapuram Village, B.Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Assistant Inspector of Fisheries, Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 The Deputy Director of Fisheries, Bangarupeta, Kurnool. 3 The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool. 4 The Narayanapuram Gram Panchayat, Narayanapuram Village, B.Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool represented by its Upa Sarpanch. 5 Lakshmi Devi Group, Dwaraka Podupu Lakshmi Group of Narayanapuram, B.Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District represented by its President. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the leasehold rights of the petitioner in respect of Brahmana Cheruvu of Narayanpuram Village, B.Atmakur Mandal, Kurnool District, even after depositing the agreed amount at the instance of the 5th respondent without canceling/suspending the lease hold rights granted in petitioner favour through the resolution dated 25- 7-2005 of the 4th respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from the principles of natural justice, and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.N.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 1308 of 2006 O R D E R: It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration and therefore, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 23-07-2008 KLP