APHC010228002014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21236/2014 Between: M. Rajashekar Naidu, Chitoor Dist. Secy Irrigation Dept 5 Ors and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. O MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 2. 3. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21236/2014 M. Rajashekar Naidu, Chitoor Dist. ...PETITIONER AND Secy Irrigation Dept 5 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: O MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE (AP) GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3333] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in threatening to demolish the compound wall of A.S.R Theatre, Madanapalli, Chittoor District as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed in WP No 18875/2008 by this Honble Court…” 02. This Court on 30.07.2014, while ordering notice before admission passed the following interim order: “…For a period of then days from today, the respondents shall not demolish the compound wall of the petitioner’s theatre except after putting him on notice and giving him an opportunity of being heard” 03. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation. 04. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation, on oral instructions, has stated that in pursuance of the interim orders dated 30.07.2014 passed by this Court, the respondent authorities have not demolished the subject compound wall said to have been constructed by the petitioner and prays to close the writ petition. 05. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and recording the submissions of the learned Standing counsel for the Municipal 3 Corporation, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping of the writ petition pending. 06. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 14.02.2025 KKV 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 21236/2014 Date: 14.02.2025 KKV