THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20063 of 2009 Dated 09th February, 2011 Between: Kota Krishnaiah …Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Sreenivas Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition was originally filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in disposing of appeal No.A3/2202/2009, dated 22.06.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the said appeal. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have come out with the plea that respondent No.1 has disposed of the petitioner’s appeal by proceedings No.A3/1798/09, dated 11.03.2009. The petitioner has, therefore, filed W.P.M.P.No.31042 of 2009 seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition. This Court allowed the said application by a separate order passed today. According to the amended prayer, the petitioner sought for invalidation of order, dated 11.03.2009, passed by respondent No.1 in the appeal. Sri K.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the only ground, on which, the appeal was dismissed by respondent No.1, was that the petitioner can pursue his remedy before the civil Court. The learned counsel also stated that respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.43 of 2009 in the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy, and that the petitioner has filed a counter claim in the said suit. He further stated that while respondent No.4 has withdrawn his suit, the counter claim filed by the petitioner is still pending adjudication. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that as directed by respondent No.1, in the above noted order passed in the appeal, the petitioner may be permitted to pursue the counter claim pending before the civil Court. Since this request is in conformity with the view taken by respondent No.1, the order passed in the appeal will not come in the way of accepting the petitioner’s request. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his counter claim pending before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy in O.S.No.43 of 2009. Needless to observe that order, dated 11.03.2009, passed by respondent No.1, will not come in the way of the civil Court to adjudicate the petitioner’s counter claim on merits in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.Nos.26169 and 26170 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th February, 2011 VGB