THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.25792 of 2009 ORDER: The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents are threatening to dispossess her from the land to an extent of Acs.2.5 cents situated in Survey No.1104/C of Addanki Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, which was assigned to her on 22.01.1988, without following due process of law. This Court, while issuing notice before admission, on 27.11.2009, directed the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that day for a period of four weeks, and subsequently extended the same for a period eight weeks. Seeking to vacate the said order, the respondents filed W.V.M.P.No.1829 of 2010 along with counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ affidavit. It is stated in the counter that the second respondent has never threatened the petitioner to dispossess her from the subject land, and that only on apprehension that the respondents may resume the land on the ground of violation of condition No.2 of the Patta Grant, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, which is too premature and is liable to be dismissed. The relevant para of the counter reads as under: “In reply to Para 3 of the affidavit, it is submitted that it is not correct to say that the 2nd respondent is threatening the petitioner to dispossess from the assigned land and no notice has been issued to the assignee. But, it is a fact that the petitioner even though assigned an extent of Ac.0.02 ½ cents in S.No.1104/C of North Addanki vide D.K.No.1422/97, dated 22.01.1988, by the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki did not occupy the assigned land and constructed any structure on it and the fact was noticed by the Revenue authorities and with an apprehension that the revenue authorities will take necessary action as per the law and resume the Land on the ground of violation of condition No.2 of Patta Grant and the petitioner filed the present writ petition even though the individual is at liberty to file her explanation explaining the reasons for non-occupation of the land under assignment and any orders passed against the individual, she can prefer Appeal before the Competent authority to redress her grievance. But that was not done in the instant case and directly approached the Hon’ble Court without having prima facie cause of action and substantive grounds.” In view of the statement made by the second respondent in the counter that he has not threatened the petitioner to dispossess her from the subject land, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. In the circumstances, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:29.04.2010 VGB