HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5689 of 2008 DATE: JULY 7, 2011 Between: K.Vinod Rao, S/o.late Ram Murthy, Aged about 60 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Raghunadhapuram, Tekkali, Srikakulam District … Petitioner And The Sub-Collector, Tekkali, Srikakulam District and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed with a prayer which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring as illegal and arbitrary the action of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in projecting as though petitioner occupied the land and declaring their action in making serious efforts to dispossess the petitioner from his piece of land admeasuring 69 cents in Sy.No.520/4, situated at Raghunadhapuram, Tekkali, Srikakulam District as illegal, violative of D-Form Patta and Pattedar Passbook of the petitioner and it is further consequentially prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following the due process of law and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” The grievance of the petitioner is that though he was granted D-Form Patta with regard to a piece of land admeasuring Ac.0.69 cents in Sy.No.520/4 of Raghunadhapuram, Tekkali, Srikakulam in the year 1983, respondents are taking steps to dispossess him from the said land as if he is an encroacher. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent, Sub-Collector, Tekkali, on behalf of the respondents, admitting grant of patta to the petitioner in the year 1983. It is stated that since the petitioner has violated the conditions of the grant of patta, resumption orders were passed on 06-03-2008 vide proceedings Rc.No.1293/1998 B. It is to be noticed that orders of resumption referred above are not under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said orders of resumption are not served on the petitioner, but the same is not stated by way of filing a reply-affidavit, although counter-affidavit was filed in the year 2008. In view of the orders of resumption referred above, no relief, as prayed, can be granted to the petitioner. As much as it is stated that orders of resumption have not been served on the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal if he is aggrieved of the orders of resumption, with a further direction to the respondents to maintain status-quo with regard to possession of the subject land for a period of two months from today. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) July 7, 2011 MRR