ORDER : K Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents 4 6 7 in attempting to take forcible possession of Ac 0 60 cents of land in R S No 347 of Peruru v of Amalapuram Mandal without serving any paddy of the petitioners of 20 bags each weighing 100 kgs most highhandedly and illegally from the houses of the petitioners by trespassing into their house by addressing them in very filthy and abusive language and by taking the law in their hands as illegal arbitrary.....” 2. The facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner’s mother got 3/4tharchakatvam services of Sri Visweswara Swamy Temple of V.Agraharam, Amalapuram through her parents. She got performed her services to the temple through her KommalapalliRamastry. For rendition of such services to the temple, the endowment authorities allotted about Ac 2.00 cents of wet land in R.S No.606/2 of Chinnadadagaruvu, H/o. Peruru, Ac 1.50 cents in R.S No.347 of ViswesaruniAgraharam, Amalapuram (V) and cultivating the same. The petitioner is having two more sisters and four brothers. Out of all the four brothers, the eldest brother KomalapalliSurayanarayana was settled as Archaka in Billakurru(v) of Kothapeta Mandal. The 2nd brother KommalapalliSubrahmanyaSarma used to reside in Bodasakurru (v) and is working as RMP Doctor. The 3rd brother VisweswaraSarma is settled in Hyderabad and is doing archakatvam services there. The 4th brother KomalapalliSriram Murthy is settled as archaka in a Sivalayam temple in Bendapudi (v) near Annavaram. In that, all the four brothers used to stay in different places and they never resided along with petitioner’s father at any point of time. As such it is the 2nd petitioner who is the husband of the 1st petitioner used to assist her father even during his advanced age and used to conduct the pujas etc., in the temple. Subsequently the 2nd brother of the 1stpetitioner shifted to the nearby her house in the year 2006 or so and attempted to take forcible possession of the lands in her cultivation. Then the 1st petitioner filed ATC No.9/2006 on the file of Tenancy Tribunal, Amalapuram and sought for interim therein to protect her possession and that the Tribunal has granted interim direction. Then the 1st petitioner filed ATC No.9/2006 on the file of Tenancy Tribunal, Amalapuram and sought for interim therein to protect her possession and that the Tribunal has granted interim direction. While so, the petitioner’s father Komalapalli Rama Sastry died. After demise of her father, as the 2nd petitioner cannot enter into the temple and cannot perform pujas and other sevas of the lord, he handed over the keys of the temple to the other share holder. Later, the 2nd petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent toconsider him as Archaka for the temple Sri VisweswaraSwamyvaru of V.Agraharam, Amalapuram. As the same was not considered by the authorities, the 2ndpetitioner also got filed a writ petition in WP No.12015 of 2012 before this Court and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24.4.2012 with certain directions to the respondent authorities. But despite of the said order, the authorities concerned did not choose to pass any order in favour of the 2nd petitioner. However, the 2nd petitioner is performing the day today pujas till the end of this KarthikaMasam. In the meantime, on every KarthikaSomavaram some third person used to attend the temple for performance of pujas within the knowledge of the 4th respondent and on her consent. It is further stated that on 28.11.2012 against to the temple tradition and custom a person by nameManepalli Siva @ Brahmam of Gollavilli(V ) performed pooja in the temple in the place of Archaka. Aggrieved with the said act, some of villagers alongwith the petitioners made a complaint against the 4th respondent. Therefore, the 4threspondent developed grudge against the petitioners’ family and wanted to take revenge against them. Accordingly, 1st petitioner made a complaint before the 6threspondent. As no action has been taken by the 6th respondent, the 1stpetitioner went to police station on 8.12.2012 and she was detained in the police station till evening and ultimately in the event the 6th respondent gave warning to surrender the Ac0.60 cents of land to the 4th respondent or else he would register a case against the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners got interim directions from this Court, but the 6threspondent simply thrown away thosepapers. As the petitioners did not agree tohandover the land the 6threspondent started abusing petitioners and further warned to book criminal case against the petitioners family members. Thereafter, the petitioners got interim directions from this Court, but the 6threspondent simply thrown away thosepapers. As the petitioners did not agree tohandover the land the 6threspondent started abusing petitioners and further warned to book criminal case against the petitioners family members. Questioning the action of the respondents, the present writ petition has bee filed. 3. This Court vide order dated 19.12.2012 has directed the respondents Nos.5, 6 and 7 not to interfere in any manner whatsoever with regard to the affairs of administration of the 4th respondent temple until further orders. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition. It is stated that after demise of Komalapalli Rama Sastry, the male legal heirs of late Sri. Komalapalli Rama Sastry were rendering archkatvam service of their father from April, 2012 and enjoying the land measuring Ac.4.00cts towards their service. All the 4 brothers have come to an understanding that on behalf 4 brothers Komalapalli Venkata Subramanya Sarma will render archakatvam service and his son Sri. Natraj will assist him. But, surprisingly, husband of Smt. Kothalanka Subbalakshmi the petitioner No.1 herein Sri Kothalanka Krishna Murthy Petitioner No.2 herein have filed W.P.No. 12015 of 2012 and the same was disposed on 24.4.2012 directing the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Rajahmundry to consider the representation dated 09-04-2012 made bythe petitioner therein i.e. the petitioner No.2 herein. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 herein has forcibly taken the keys of the temple from Komalapalli Venkata Subramanya Sarma and allowed her husband petitioner No.2 herein to render archakatvam in the temple without any right/ permission of the competent authority and both the petitioners herein discriminated/misbehaved with the devotees /villagers as such the villagers have submitted a representation to the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, East Godavari to handover the archakatvam back to the sons of late Sri. Komalapalli Rama Sastry. Further, the petitioners herein have squatted on the land measuring Ac.0.50Cts in Rs.No.347 Visweswaruni Graharam, Amalapuram, Village and Mandal, East Godavari. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 has tried to take away the crop from above land cultivated by her brothers/ legal heirs of late Sri. Komalapalli Rama Sastry. Komalapalli Rama Sastry. Further, the petitioners herein have squatted on the land measuring Ac.0.50Cts in Rs.No.347 Visweswaruni Graharam, Amalapuram, Village and Mandal, East Godavari. Thereafter the petitioner No.1 has tried to take away the crop from above land cultivated by her brothers/ legal heirs of late Sri. Komalapalli Rama Sastry. The brothers of the petitioner No.1 have made a representation dated 14-12-2012 to the Executive Officer of the temple to safeguard the paddy crop raised by them in the land and they are eligible to enjoy the crop towards the archkatvam service rendered by them. Thereafter the Executive Officer has taken the paddy crop on 18-12-2012 consisting of 15 bags 75 Kgs each and kept the same in her safe custody i.e. in the store room of the temple. As the matters stood thus, the petitioners herein have filed the instant writ petition concealing above facts with false and frivolous averments to make illegal gain and to cause loss to the temple.It is further stated that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, East Godavari has conducted enquiry into the matter and passed a detailed and cogent order vide Rc.No.A2/2463/2012 dated 16-02-2013 conferring the right of archakatvam on the 4 sons of late Sri Komalapalli Rama Sastry one year each duly enjoying Ac.1.00 of land each as undertaken by them in the commitment deed dated 06-09-2009 and rejected the application of the petitioner No.2 dated 09-04-2012. Immediately thereafter the orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16-02-2013 were served on the legal heirs of late Sri Komalapalli Rama Sastry. In view of the orders the Executive Officer of the temple has submitted a letter to Assistant Commissioner requesting him to grant permission to handover the crop consisting of 15bags of 75Kg paddy to the sons of late Sri Komalapalli Rama Sastry. Therefore there are no merits in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard Sri Pappu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Ms. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents made in the petition. Whereas, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have also reiterated the contents made in the counter. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. P. Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contents made in the petition. Whereas, learned counsels appearing for the respondents have also reiterated the contents made in the counter. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. It is the contention of the petitioners that , out of four brothers of the 1st petitioner, one brother is alive. The 2nd petitioner is the husband of the 1st petitioner. He served the temple for several years and on the other hand, his application for appointing him as Archaka is pending with the endowment authorities. It is further contention of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner is cultivating the said Ac.0.60 cents land since several years during the lifetime of her father. After demise of her father, her husband i.e., 2nd petitioner herein performing pujas in the temple, they are taking the yield from out of the said land of Ac 0.60 cents by personally cultivating the same. 9. Moreover, it is the contention of the respondents that the Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, East Godavari District, has conducted enquiry into the matter and passed a detailed and cogent order vide Rc.No.A2/2463/2012 dated 16.02.2013 conferring the right of archakatvam on the 4 sons of late Sri Kommalapli Rama Sastry one year each duly enjoying Ac 1.00 of and each as undertaken by them in the Commitment Deed dated 6.9.2009 and rejected the application of the 2nd petitioner dated 9.4.2012. Immediately thereafter the orders of the Assistant commissioner dated 16.2.2013 were served on the legal heirs of late Sri Komalapalli Rama Sastry and in view of the orders of the Executive Officer of the temple has submitted a letter to Assistant Commissioner requesting him to grant permission to handover the crop consisting of 15 bags of 75 kgs paddy to the sons of late Sri Komalapalli Rama Sastry. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court observed that, the Executive Officer of the temple has submitted a letter to Assistant Commissioner requesting him to grant permission to handover the crop consisting of 15 bags 75 kgs paddy to the sons of late Sri Komalapalli Rama Sastry, some of the paddy of petitioners are being handed over by the respondents. 11. 11. In view of the interim order of this Court dated 19.12.2012, no orders are required to be passed against the respondents No.5 to 7. The 5th respondent has not filed any report till today. If at all, the petitioners still subsisting any grievance, they are at liberty to file fresh representation to the respondents concerned and on receiving of such representation, the respondents are directed to consider the said representation and pass appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law. 12. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.