IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 260 of 2008 Between: Mrs. Mallidi Udaya Sri, w/o. P. Krishna Reddy, R/o. 1-3-1/21, Kawadiguda, Hyderabad - 80 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2 The Tahasildar, Pentapadu (Village & Mandal), W.G. District A.P., Pin : 534 166 3 The Revene Divisional Officer, Eluru, West Godavari District. 4 The District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. West Godavari Ditrict, Eluru. 5 The Dy. Executive Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. Eluru Division, Eluru. 6 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer & Mandal Housing Officer, Pentapadu, West Godavari District. 7 The Mandal Incharge/Asst. Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. Pentapadu Mandal, Pentapadu. 8 Chimmu Nagamani, W/o. Achaiah, Beneficiaries/Private parties, R/o. Kummaripuntha, Near Andhra Bank, Pentapadu. 9 Bathula Rammulamma, W/o. Late Gothiah, Beneficiaries/Private parties, R/o. Kummaripuntha, Near Andhra Bank, Pentapadu. 10 B. Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Guthi Konda Babji, Beneficiaries/Private parties, R/o. Kummaripuntha, Near Andhra Bank, Pentapadu. 11 Saripilli Sithamma, W/o. Erranna, Beneficiaries/Private parties, R/o. Kummaripuntha, Near Andhra Bank, Pentapadu. .....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 to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or orders declaring enjoyment certificate issued to the non-official respondents 8 to 11 by the respondents 1 to 3 as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, with out bunds of their authority, null and void and consequently direct the official respondents 1 to 3 to cancel said enjoyment certificates, with reference to thepart and parcel of the R.S.No. 121/1 and R.S.No. 123 admeasuring 3122 sq. yards and 788 sq.yards respectively of Pentapadu Village and mandal, W.G. District and accord all and further order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The writ petition is filed for a declaration that the action of the respondents in issuing ‘Enjoyment Certificates’ to the non-official respondents 8 to 12 is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner alleges that the respondents 1 to 3 issued ‘enjoyment certificates’ to the non-official respondents in respect of land admeasuring 3122 sq.yards and 788 sq. yards in R.S.Nos. 121/1 and 123/1 respectively of Pentapadu village and mandal, W.G.District even though the property belongs to the petitioner and has been so confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dt. 31.3.1925 in O.S.Nos, 539, 540 and 541 of 1922 on the file of the District Munsif, Kovvuru, W.G.District. By an order dt. 1.7.2008, the 2nd respondent cancelled the enjoyment certificates issued in favour of non-official respondents 8 to 13 and these respondents were also informed that they would be considered preferentially for issue of house pattas along with other beneficiaries of the village as and when acquisition proposals are finalized. In his order dt. 1.7.2008, the 2nd respondent has acknowledged that despite the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 539 of 1922 and batch dt. 31.3.1925 of the District Muniff, Kovvur, the land was erroneously treated as ‘Puntha’ land instead of private land belonging to the petitioner. As the substantive grievance of the petitioner no longer survives in view of the order of the 2nd respondent dt. 1.7.2008, nothing subsists for further proceedings in the writ petition either. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. However, if the petitioner has any subsisting grievance that the State or any other State Officer has put any person in unauthorized possession of the petitioner’s property under the earlier mistaken impression that the property belongs to the State, the petitioner is always at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy before the competent civil court for eviction of such unauthorized person or may represent to the State and the official respondents to take executive action for restituting the petitioner to her lawful possession prior to which she was dispossessed on account of unlawful conduct of the official respondents in putting others in possession of her property. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 260 of 2008 Dated: 29.4.2009.