HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33980 of 2011 Date: 23.12.2011 Between: Dunnala Sambasiva Rao ..... Petitioner And: The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Authority-cum-Addl. Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District and two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nagaraju Gavuri Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: AGP for Social Welfare The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner suffered ejectment orders on 25.01.2007 in two L.T.R. cases. He has filed C.M.A.No.48 of 2008 before respondent No.1. He has also sought for stay of ejectment orders by filing I.A.No.68 of 2008. Initially, an order of stay of ejectment was granted for a period of four months and the same was not extended later in spite of the petitioner filing memo, dated 25.09.2008. When interference was sought to be made by respondent No.2 and his subordinates, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.31448 of 2011. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal, if not already done, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It was further directed that if the petitioner moves the application for extension of interim order, respondent No.1 shall also consider the same and pass appropriate order. The petitioner averred that after the disposal of the said Writ Petition, he has moved I.A.No.28 of 2011 seeking extension of interim stay and that respondent No.1 has extended the stay till disposal of C.M.A. by his order, dated 03.12.2011. The purported cause of action for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition is that respondent No.3 and his subordinates came to his land on 18.01.2011 and threatened him to vacate the land despite the order extending the stay by respondent No.1. In my opinion, if the petitioner has any grievance against respondent No.2, he has to approach respondent No.1 for effectuation of the order granted by him. Respondent No.2 being subordinate officer to respondent No.1 in all respects is bound by the latter’s order and respondent No.1 has every power and authority to ensure that his order is given effect to by respondent No.2 and his subordinates. By straightaway moving this Court the petitioner is virtually seeking execution of the order passed by respondent No.1. The proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for such purposes. While giving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.1 if he has any grievance against respondent No.2 and his subordinates, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.42272 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23rd December 2011 DR