JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. - Heard Sri Allam Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.5/APCRDA. 2. Despite the fact that most of the respondents had already appeared on 16.12.2019 till date no counter-affidavit has been filed and now again learned Standing Counsel is requesting for granting further time for filing counter-affidavit. 3. Considering the nature of the dispute raised in the present writ petition and elapse of much time, the Court is of the opinion that it would be futile exercise to further defer the matter. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. 5. The petitioner, who claims to be M.L.A., Mangalagiri Assembly Constituency, has filed the present writ petition on 05.12.2019, assailing G.O.Ms.No.228, which was issued long back on 22.06.2017 allotting land admeasuring Ac.3.65 cents in Sy.Nos.392/1, 392/2, 392/3, 392/4, 392/8, 392/9 and 392/10 of Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, in favour of respondent No.12- Telugu Desham Party for construction of office building. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that the said land was stream poramboku land and as such the Government was not legally entitled to transfer said land by issuing impugned G.O. Accordingly, the G.O has been assailed. In paragraph No.19 of the writ petition, a specific declaration has been made by the petitioner that there are no other cases or petitions filed or that are pending before this Court or any other forum or Court to the best of knowledge and belief of the petitioner, whereas along with this writ petition, the petitioner has brought on record, a copy of writ petition i.e. W.P. No.43089 of 2017, filed by Smt.Kolla Subbayamma and Sri Raghu Raghava Rao. On perusal of the copy of the petition, which has been brought on record, it is evident that some land proceeding in relation to the same land was challenged by the said writ petitioners. On perusal of the copy of the petition, which has been brought on record, it is evident that some land proceeding in relation to the same land was challenged by the said writ petitioners. In paragraph No.2 of the said writ petition at page Nos.187 and 188, the following fact has been mentioned: "I submit that the instant Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings in RC.No.566/2017-DT dated 13.06.2017 passed by the 5th Respondent as 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power, non-application of mind, contrary to the earlier allotment made and various proceedings issued from time to time in favour of the petitioners herein and is in violation of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.M.P.No.16210 of 2017 in W.P.No.13048 of 2017 dated 12.04.2017 and violative of the provisions of the law of the land, Assignment laws, principles of natural justice, Acquisition Laws and violative of Articles 14 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the said proceedings by further declaring that the Petitioners are entitled to be adequately compensated due to acquiring of the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.392 of Atmakuru Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, which is now allotted to Telugu Desam Party for constructing of their national office." Similarly, in paragraph No.33 of W.P. No.43089 of 2017, prayer has been made as follows: "It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus the proceedings in RC.No.566/2017-DT dated 13.06.2017 passed by the 5th Respondent as 4th Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power, non-application of mind, contrary to the earlier allotment made and various proceedings issued from time to time in favour of the petitioners herein and is in violation of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.M.P.No.16210 of 2017 in W.P.No.13048 of 2017 dated 12.04.2017 and violative of the provisions of the law of the land, Assignment laws, principles of natural justice, Acquisition Laws and violative of Articles 14 & 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the said proceedings by further declaring that the Petitioners are entitled to be adequately compensated due to acquiring of the land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.392 of Atmakuru Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District, which is now allotted to Telugu Desam Party for constructing of their national office and to pass such other order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper." 7. On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that the writ petitioners in the said writ petition also challenged the action of respondent/State to the transfer of almost the same land to respondent No.12. There is a reference regarding questioning of transfer of the said land to respondent No.12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to paragraph No.3 of the writ petition at page No.188 submits that even the said writ petition, in view of the fact that the questioned land is water land, the said writ petition may not succeed. He has specifically referred to paragraph No.3 at page No.188, which is as follows: "I submit that from the year 1980 till 1993, my father and the husband of the 1st petitioner herein were the Lessee, cultivating the land admeasuring AC.7.00 Gts., in D.No.15&16, belonging to Sri Rudreswaraswamy Devasthanam, Vaddeswaram Village, Tadepalle Mandal, Guntur District. In the year 1993, we had raised groundnut crop in the said land, which was not harvested then, in the meanwhile, the 1st respondent had acquired the said land for the purpose of providing accommodation to the displaced persons due to the four lane National Highway of Kanakadurga Varadhi. On our representation and in lieu of compensation for the standing crop valued at Rs.70,000/- and the loss of the leased lands, the then Government decided to allot alternative land admeasuring Ac.3.50 cents in Sy.No.392 of Atmakuru Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, Guntur District to us." 8. Even though, the Court, after noticing that no counter-affidavit has been filed and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, proceeded to dictate order, learned State Counsel intervened and stated that the land which was transferred to respondent No.12 is a prohibited land for alienation. At the time of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that earlier writ petition is still pending. 9. Be that as it may. Considering the fact that the impugned G.O. was issued long back on 22.06.2017 and the petitioner, who is not an ordinary person, rather, he claims to be sitting M.L.A., was not expected to approach this Court after such a long time that too, in a situation, where the petitioner himself has brought on record, the copy of the writ petition i.e. W.P. No.43089 of 2017 showing that dispute relating to same land was already raised. It is surprising that in spite of the fact that petitioner himself has brought on record of this case a copy of W.P. No.43089 of 2017, in which the land in question was subject matter, in affidavit filed with this Writ Petition, the petitioner in paragraph 19 at Page 33 has stated as follows: "I hereby solemnly state on oath and affirm and declare that the question raised in the Writ Petition has not been raised or agitated earlier and that there are no other case(s) or Petition(s) filed or that are pending before this Hon'ble Court or any other forum or court to the best of my knowledge and, research and belief." Without going on such issue whether petitioner has made incorrect statement or not, considering the fact that the G.O, which is under challenge was issued long back on 22.06.2017 and this writ petition was filed in the month of December, 2019, there is no need to further proceed with the matter. The writ petition stands disposed of. It goes without saying that in view of the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel, the Government would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.