THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1795 of 2006 Dated:31.01.2006 Between: G.Ramamohana Naidu S/o.Jampa Naidu R/o.Gundemadakala village, Vinjamoor Mandal Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND The President,Gundemadakala Water Users Association Gundemandakala vilage, Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore District, and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.1795 of 2006 ORDER: The Sarpanch and President of Water Users Association of Gundemadakala Gram Panchayat conducted auction to sell Babool trees in the vicinity of Kaveri Vagu. In the auction held on 10.01.2006, the petitioner became the highest bidder and he was given all the rights to cut the trees. The petitioner wants to utilize these trees for fencing his land. Be that as it is, some of the villagers made a complaint that the petitioner is making attempts to cut the trees in Yerukollu Arundathiyapalem. Acting on the same, the second respondent issued notice dated 16.01.2006 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation and also produce material in support of his right. The petitioner submitted explanation on 18.01.2006. The second respondent allegedly did not pass any orders, but it is alleged that he is preventing the petitioner from cutting the trees, which he purchased in the auction. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed seeking, inter alia, a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer not to interfere with the cutting of the Babool trees in the vicinity of Kaveri Vagu of Gundemadakala Tank area in Nellore District. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General), this Court does not find any infirmity in the second respondent acting upon the complaint given by the Harijans of Yerukollu Arundathiyapalem of the Village. The petitioner’s Counsel made only request to direct the second respondent to dispose of the matter immediately, so that the petitioner can cut the trees, which he purchased in the auction. In view of this, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 18.01.2006, and pass appropriate orders within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 31.01.2006 vs