THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8412 of 2010 April 19, 2010 Between: Padi Kistamma, W/o.Venkataiah … Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, SPSR Nellore District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8412 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioner, who is resident of Annamrajupalli Village, stately owns land admeasuring Acs.4.10 in survey Nos.21-2B and 22-2 in Cheekavolu Village of Sydapuram Mandal in Nellore District. It appears, in 2007, an extent of As.2.56 was acquired for digging a channel for Telugu Ganga Project. It is alleged that the neighbours of the petitioner, M/s.Mathangi Veeraswami, Mathangi Venkataiah, Kummaragunta Penchalaiah and Kummaragunta Narsaiah (not parties to the writ petition) requested the petitioner to sell the land. Petitioner refused. Therefore, they pressurized the Gram Panchayat to lay the road in the land. Petitioner then filed W.P.No.16808 of 2008. This Court ordered status quo initially and subsequently disposed of the matter directing respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner also filed O.S.No.95 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, for mandatory injunction. He also obtained interim injunction. The suit is pending. It is now alleged that on 30.3.2010 though petitioner gave representation, respondents came to petitioner’s land and poured the metal on his land for the purpose of laying the road. Therefore, he filed the instant writ petition seeking writ of Mandamus for appropriate directions. The Standing Counsel appearing for fifth respondent obtained instructions. She submits that the road is being laid on the existing Kachcha road and no part of petitioner’s land is being encroached upon. She also submits that after the petitioner filed instant writ petition, the concerned Engineer also directed the contractor not to deal in any manner with the land of petitioner. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the writ petition is filed on mere apprehension. Even otherwise, petitioner already obtained interim order in O.S.No.95 of 2008 with regard to same property. Needless to mention that the said interim order must be considered by the respondents while in any manner dealing with the property of petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) April 19, 2010 YS