JUDGMENT: Heard Sri G. Bhanu Sai Prasad Varma, learned counsel, representing Sri Y. V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P. Haritha, learned counsel, appearing for the 5th respondent. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following reliefs: “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the property rights of the petitioner particularly with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over Plot No.7 admeasuring 193.11 sq yards and Plot No.34 admeasuring 215.11 sq yards covered by Sy.No.140/1A situated at Pernamitta Village and Panchayat S N Padu Sub Registrar limits Prakasam District is illegal arbitrary highhanded and violative of Article 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and also violative of procedure prescribed under Land Acquisition Act 1984 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over plot No.7 admeasuring 193.11 sq yards and Plot No.34 admeasuring 215.11 sq yards covered by Sy No 140/1A situated at Pernamitta Village and Panchayat S N Padu Sub Registrar limits Prakasam District without following the prescribed under the relevant statues and to pass such other order or orders…..” 3. Sri G. Bhanu Sai Prasad Varma, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, as also Ms. P. Haritha, learned counsel, appearing for the 5th respondent, jointly submit that the controversy as involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the common judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in batch of writ petitions, leading one being W.P.No.16763 of 2011, decided on 10.01.2024. They submit that the present writ petition may also be disposed of in terms thereof. The land involved in the present case is also situated in the same survey number but to different extent. 4. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent submits referring to the counter affidavit that there is dispute whether the lands claimed by the petitioner falls under Sy.No.140/1A situated at Pernamitta Village and Panchayat, S.N.Padu Sub-Registrar limits Prakasam District or in original Sy.No.140, that the same dispute as was involved in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions. 5. The batch of writ petitions leading one being W.P.No.16763 of 2011 was disposed of with the following directions: “12. 5. The batch of writ petitions leading one being W.P.No.16763 of 2011 was disposed of with the following directions: “12. In view of the same, as there is a dispute whether the lands claimed by the petitioners falls under the Sy.No.140/1A or Sy.No.140/2A. However, as per the Sub-divisions made in Sy.No.140 of Pernamitta village, the land to an extent of Acs.11.72½ cents is a patta land which falls in Sy.No.140/2A. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petitions by directing the Mandal Surveyor, Pernamitta Village to conduct a survey in the presence of the petitioners by duly giving a notice to them and submit a report as to which sub-division of Sy.No.140 of Pernamitta Village is in the physical possession and enjoyment of the petitioners herein. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, till then the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the subject land. 13. Accordingly, with the above direction these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.” 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also being disposed with the same directions to the Mandal Surveyor, Pernamitta Village to conduct a survey in the presence of the petitioner by duly giving a notice to him and submit a report as to which sub-division of Sy.No.140 of Pernamitta Village is in the physical possession and enjoyment of the petitioner herein. The said process shall be completed within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, till then the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject land. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.