THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7006 of 2011 Dated 23.03.2011 Between: Som Parameswara Reddy …Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by District Collector, Prakasam District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri D.V.Sashidhar, for Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned standing counsel for Endowments The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in insisting on the petitioner to vacate his property situated over the land admeasuring 144 sq. yards in survey No.986/3C of North Addanki Revenue Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District, without following due process of law as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard Sri D.V. Sashidhar, learned counsel, representing Sri V.T.M. Prasad, learned standing counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.4. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the aforementioned property from the original owner and has constructed a residential building after obtaining building permission from Addanki Gram Panchayat on 26.10.2010. He alleged that on 14.03.2011, respondent Nos.2 to 4 visited his house and demanded him to vacate the same within a period of one week, failing which he will be dispossessed by using Police force. Feeling aggrieved by this alleged action, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, the learned counsel representing the learned standing counsel for Endowments appearing for respondent No.4 has stated that respondent No.4 has filed O.S.No.14 of 1982 for declaration of its title against the petitioner’s vendor before the competent civil Court, which has decreed the suit and that the vendor has filed A.S.No.991 of 1998, in which an interim order was passed by this Court permitting respondent No.4 to recover the possession. That against the said order, L.P.A.No.361 of 1998 was filed by the aggrieved party, in which an order of status quo has been granted. The learned counsel, while stating that the party to the civil proceedings has evidently sold the property to the petitioner in violation of the order of status quo, has, however, submitted that in view of the said interim order, his client is not interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property, while reserving its right to take appropriate steps in the pending L.P.A. The above statement of the learned counsel representing learned standing counsel is placed on record and the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.8749 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd March, 2011 GHN