ORDER:-

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioners, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking Mandamus, for the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in proceeding with the works in Patta land of Ac.0-80 Cents in Sy.No.38/2 New Sy.No.13 of Arasavalli village, Srikakulam District of the petitioners where status quo orders are subsisting in W.A.M.P.No.1080/2009 in W.A.No.536/2009 dt.17.04.2009 as highly arbitrary, illegal and violating the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.A.M.P.No.1080/2009 in W.A.No.536/2009 dt.17.04.2009 with a further direction to demolish if any constructions are made…”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation.

3. The case of the petitioners is that originally, an extent of Ac.1-40 cents in Survey No.38/2 (New Survey No.13) at Arasavalli Village, Srikakulam District, was assigned to their grandfather in 1947. The land was cultivated by their father and, after his demise, by their mother, who was granted a 'D' Form patta. Later, she came to know that Ac.0-60 cents of her land in Sy.No.38/2 had been alienated to third parties by the authorities. Aggrieved by the same, she filed W.P.No.1776/2005, challenging the alienation as arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights, seeking Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds for Ac.0-80 cents. On 07-02-2005, this Court granted a status quo order, later made absolute on 28-07-2006. When the order was violated, she filed Contempt Case No.299/2007. The District Collector, in a counter affidavit dated 03-07-2007, stated that only an extent of Ac.0-60 cents was allotted to the District Congress Committee, and an extent of Ac.0-80 cents was never interfered or alienated to any third parties. During the proceedings, the petitioners were added as legal heirs of their mother. However, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 17-03-2009.

4. It is also the case of the petitioners that against the orders in W.P.No.1776 of 2005, they filed W.A.No.536/2009, which was admitted, and the Division Bench of composite High Court granted status quo on 29-04-2009 in W.A.M.P.No.1080/2009. While the appeal was pending, respondents attempted to allot the land to third parties for taxi parking. Then the 1^st respondent submitted representations on 05-03-2021 and 25-03-2021, warning of contempt proceedings. Despite the District Collector’s endorsement for removing illegal shops, no action was taken. The Electricity Department provided power to those shops. Therefore, the 1^st petitioner issued a legal notice on 05-03-2022 to the 5^th respondent to disconnect supply. Then, the 5^th respondent issued notices on 04-04-2022, but power was not disconnected due to a lack of ownership proof.

5. The 1^st petitioner filed W.P.No.24539/2023, and based on instructions, this Court directed to file counter. However, as the instructions were contrary to the ground reality, the 1^st petitioner filed C.C.No.2617/2024, which is pending. Recently, the 1^st petitioner learned that shops were shifted 3 to 5 feet back to install a statue of late Sri Babu Jagjeevan Ram, which is outside the subject land. However, the respondents have started leveling the entire Ac.0- 80 cents despite the status quo order. Upon questioning, the 1^st petitioner received no response, leading him to submit representations on 24-01-2025 to respondent Nos.2 to 4. Since the work continues, the 1^st petitioner filed a Contempt Case in W.A.M.P.No.1080/2009 in W.A.No.536/2009 for violating court orders. In those circumstances, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

6. Today when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Revenue has furnished a copy of instructions of the Tahsildar, wherein it is stated that the executive staff of their office reported that at present the ground positio