JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for Endowments, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr.Ghanta Rama Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Ghanta Sridhar, appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.P.Rajani, learned G.P. for Endowments, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.01.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.21702 of 2020, whereby the learned single Judge disposed the writ petition with the following directions: “1) It would be open to the respondents to either take steps to bring the L.Rs of Sri K.Stephen David on record and continue O.A.No.224 of 2017 after obtaining necessary orders of setting aside the abatement of the proceedings or to initiate fresh O.A against the legal heirs of Sri K.Stephen David for obtaining such declarations as the respondents may deem fit. (2) The declaration that Sri K.Stephen David is an encroacher of the land by the Tribunal is not in existence in more on account of the order dated 31.07.2019 which set aside the exparte decree. In such a situation, unless and until a declaration that Sri K.Stephen David was an encroacher is obtained, the eviction of Sri K.Stephen David would require to be reversed. (3) In these circumstances, there shall be a status-quo in relation to the land in question for a period of one month to enable the respondents to take appropriate action. (4) In the event the respondents choose not to take any action within the said period, it would be open to the petitioner to take appropriate steps to obtain recovery of possession of the property.” 3. The husband of the writ petitioner claimed ownership of the property of which he was in possession viz., 1111 sq. yards in T.Survey Nos.1917, 1918, 1920, 2000, 2002 and 1922, Ward No.5, Block No.25 situated in Annapurnammapeta, Rajahmundry, on the ground that he had entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of the said property. The appellant and 4th respondent herein had filed O.A.No.224 of 2017 before the A.P. Endowments Tribunal, seeking a declaration that the husband of the petitioner was an encroacher. An ex parte decree came to be passed on 31.07.2019 and he was evicted from the land. Subsequently, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay, was filed. An ex parte decree came to be passed on 31.07.2019 and he was evicted from the land. Subsequently, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree along with an application for condonation of delay, was filed. When the respondent/appellant herein started fencing of the land, the husband of the writ petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.16916 of 2019 and this court, by an order dated 06.12.2019, directed the respondent therein to dispose of the application to condone the delay as well as to consider the application for setting aside the decree. Subsequently, the said applications were allowed and the ex parte decree came to be set aside on 20.01.2020. 4. On 04.08.2020, the husband of the petitioner expired. 5. At that stage, respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition issued an auction notice dated 04.11.2020 to lease out the subject property. Assailing the said auction notice, the Writ Petition came to be filed. However, by the time the petitioner approached this Court, the auction had been conducted. On 24.11.2020, this Court had granted an interim direction to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the husband of the petitioner was already evicted upon a declaration made by the Endowments Tribunal and, therefore, there is no illegality in issuing the auction notice. It is also submitted that there will be no necessity in the facts and circumstances of the case to bring the legal representatives of the husband of the petitioner on record when the O.A. was filed only to declare the husband of the petitioner as an encroacher and therefore, the order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable in law. 7. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is the wife of the respondent in O.A.No.224 of 2017. A perusal of the averments made in the aforesaid O.A. would go to show that although the husband of the petitioner alone was made a respondent, there is an averment in paragraph 5 of the O.A. that the respondent and others trespassed illegally and without any right occupied the subject property. On a specific query of the Court that who are the others as referred to in para 5 of the O.A., the learned counsel for the appellant could not give any specific explanation. On a specific query of the Court that who are the others as referred to in para 5 of the O.A., the learned counsel for the appellant could not give any specific explanation. It is not the case presented in the O.A. that the respondent, i.e., the husband of the petitioner, was only in occupation of the land in question by encroaching and that his wife was not residing with him. 8. The learned single Judge had rightly held that the ex parte decree having been set aside, the declaration granted that the husband of the petitioner is an encroacher cannot survive. It is also not in dispute that the O.A. is still pending on record. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order of the learned single Judge. 9.Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.