IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 7880 of 2004 Between: Smt.R.Venkata Lakshmi, w/o Veerabhadra Rao, Occ:housewife, r/o Rollapalem Village, Amalapuram Mandal, E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Executive Officer, A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad-28. 2 The Asst.Director, A.P.Khadi and Village Industries Board, Eluru, W.G.District. 3 Mr.K.Ganga Raju, s/o Satyanarayana, Occ:Business, r/o Achannapalem Village, Nallajarla Mandal, W.G.District. 4 Mr.K.Satyanarayana, s/o Ganga Raju, Occ:Cultivation, r/o Achannapalem Village, Nallajarla Mandal, W.G.District. 5 Kakarla Rajin, w/o late Veera Venkata Ramulu, r/o Achannapalem Village, Nallajarla Mandal, W.G.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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Res.No.2 in issuing the public auction notice dt.22-4-2004 in Eenadu Daily Newspaper intending to auction the petitioner's joint familylands in Sy.No.227/1 Ac.5.45 cts., Cheepurugudem Village and Sy.No.367/2A, Ac.1.04 cents Achannapalem Village, both situated in Nallajarla Mandal, W.G.District on 29-4-2004 at the Gram Panchayat Office, Cheepurugudem Village, Nallajarla Mandal, W.G.District and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.ANNAPURNA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 7880 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the second respondent in proposing to auction the lands situated in Survey No.227/ 2001 and Survey No.367/2A of Achannapalem Village, Nallajarla Mandal, West Godavari District vide auction notice dated 29.4.2004 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner herein claims title and possession in respect of the properties in question and it is contended that the respondents 3 and 4 who obtained loan from the respondents 1 and 2 mortgaged the said properties without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner. At the out set, it is to be noted that though the petitioner sought for interim stay of the auction under the impugned notice, no such interim order was granted by this Court. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court the auction was already conducted pursuant to the impugned notice. Under the circumstances, nothing services for adjudication on merits at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to workout the appropriate remedy as available under law for reddressal of his grievance, if any. No costs. ________________ Justice G.Rohini Date:8.12.2008 mrb