HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20916 of 2008 Date: 28.10.2010 Between : D. Chinnabba Raju. …….Petitioner And The District Collector, Chittoor District & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20916 of 2008 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., covered by Sy.No.137-1B, situated at P.V.Puram of Satyavedu Mandal in Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary, with a consequential direction to the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s possession over the aforesaid land. It is the case of the petitioner that he was assigned land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts., covered by Sy.No.137-1B, situated at P.V.Puram of Satyavedu Mandal in Chittoor District. It is stated that respondents have initiated proceedings and issued notice, dated 03.12.2004, in Roc.No.620/2004, to the petitioner, alleging that he has violated the conditions of grant of patta and alienated the land in favour of third parties. It is stated that the petitioner has already filed explanation to the said notice, but without passing any final orders, respondents are interfering with his possession. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the land in question was originally assigned to the petitioner, but the said land was found to be in illegal possession of Kalki Trust, basing on the alienation made by the petitioner. It is stated that after issuing notice, respondents have passed final orders on 29th of December 2004, issued in proceedings Roc.No.B/620/04, cancelling the assignment and that the said proceedings were served on the petitioner. It is stated in the counter that without questioning the said order, petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim orders. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has submitted during the course of arguments that no valid reasons for cancellation of assignment are given in the order, dated 29th December 2004, issued in Proceedings Roc.No.B/620/04, which is served along with the counter affidavit, it is to be noticed that the validity of the said order is not the subject matter of this writ petition. While it is open for the petitioner to pursue the remedies available under law against the order, dated 29th December 2004, it cannot be said that there is illegal interference by the respondents, with the possession of the petitioner. In view of the statement made in the counter affidavit that final orders are passed on 29th of December 2004 in Proceedings Roc.No.B/620/04, cancelling the assignment, keeping it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies available under law, against the said order, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be a further direction to the respondents to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the land in question, for a period of six weeks from today. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th October 2010 ajr