IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21364 of 2001 Between: Mode Srinivasulu Naik S/o Gopal Naik R/o Sidareddypalem, H/o Chennuru, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore District. 2 The Revenur Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District. 3 The Mandal Revenur Officer, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. 4 The Circle Inspector of Police, Buchireddy Palem Village & Mandal, Nellore District. 5 Mode Subrahmanyam Naik S/o Bala Naik, Major, R/o Siddareddypalem, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. 6 P.Hazrathaiah Major, R/o Siddareddypalem, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District. ..RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: None appeared Counsel for respondent No. 6: SRI A.SRINIVASA RAO FOR SRI M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 3 in interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of land admeasuring Acs.3.15 cents in R.S.No.41/3/part of Siddareddypalem Village, H/o Chennuru, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District, at the instance of respondents 5 and 6, as arbitrary and unreasonable. Heard Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for respondents 1 to 4. Notice served on respondent No.5 was returned with the endorsement that he refused to receive the same. Respondent No.6 is represented by Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar. At the hearing, Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner was granted ryotwari patta by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore on 22-02- 1963 in respect of the extent of Acs.3.15 cents in R.S.No.41/3/part; that without knowing the said fact, the petitioner applied for a patta and as his application was not disposed of, he filed W.P.No.1666 of 2000, which was disposed of by this Court on 10-02-2000 by directing respondent No.3 to dispose of the petitioner’s representation. He further submitted that during the enquiry held by respondent No.3, it came to light that the petitioner’s grandfather was granted patta as far back as 22-02-1963 itself, and therefore, he passed an order on 14-07- 2001 permitting the petitioner to cultivate the land. The learned counsel further submitted that a couple months after the filing of the present writ petition, respondent No.3 issued pattadar passbooks on 10-12-2001. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, he averred that the petitioner is not entitled to be in possession of the property. He, however, submitted that his client is not concerned with the property in dispute. Having regard to the fact that after the filing of the present writ petition, respondent No.3 issued pattadar passbooks on 10-12-2001, it is not necessary for this Court to delve into the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3.The issuance of pattadar passbooks enables the petitioner to be in lawful possession of the property and so long as the said passbooks remain in existence, none of the respondents can interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the property. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 13th March, 2009 vrn