IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32902 of 2010 Between: Narender Chand Bhandari & others. ..... Petitioners AND The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary Pandhayat Raj Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondents 3&4: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32902 of 2010 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside notice dated 11.11.2010 of respondent No.3, whereby he has directed the petitioners not to make construction of compound wall over the land in Sy.No.43 of Kothur Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Standing counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. When the petitioners were constructing a compound wall, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 Gram Panchayath has given notice dated 11.11.2010 directing the petitioners to stop further construction of compound wall, as no permission was obtained by them for such construction. Questioning the said notice, the present Writ Petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is inter alia stated that as respondent No.3 has received a complaint from respondent No.5 stating that he has filed a petition before the Tahsildar, Kothur under Section 32 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in respect of the land in dispute, no permission shall be granted to the petitioners for construction of the compound wall and that based on the said complaint respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice. It is further stated that the Gram Panchayath is not having any record with regard to the disputed site, that it is for the petitioners and respondent No.5 to resolve the same and that the Gram Panchayath has nothing to do with this dispute. Having regard to the abovementioned stand of respondent No.3, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. Respondent No.5 is, however, entitled to pursue the proceedings, which are stated to be pending before the Tahsildar, Kothur. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.41798 of 2010 and WVMP.No.540 of 2011 are also dismissed as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.02.2011 ES