1 APHC010346872013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 38103/2013 Between: 1. SIRIGIRISETTY CHINA VENKAIAH DORA S/O. SATYANARAYANA, OCC: CULTIVATION, R/O. VADDADI VILLAGE, BUTCHAIAHPET (M), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE APEPDCL, REP BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, VIDYUTH BHAVAN, NEAR GREEN PARK HOTEL, VISAKHAPATNAM 2. THE ASST DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APEPDCL, VIDYUTH BHAVAN, NEAR GREEN PARK HOTEL, VISAKHAPATNAM 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GRAMPANCHAYAT, VADDALI VILLAGE, BUTCHAIAH PET (M), VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: At request of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, this Writ Petition was adjourned on 14.07.2025 and 18.07.2025. Today, there is no representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. It transpires from record that on the first date of hearing, i.e., on 26.12.2013, this Court had passed the Interim Order to the following effect: “The respondents 1 and 2 may carry on the construction activity, after fixing the boundaries for the land held by them.” 2. This Interim Order has been subsisting till today. 3. Ms. Kothapalli Aishwarya Chowdhary, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V. Sathish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, has drawn the attention of this Court to paras 4 to 6 of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil), APEPDCL. The relevant portions of paras 4 to 6 are usefully extracted hereunder: “4. It is submitted that the boundaries of the department land at wadaddi are very clear and the compound wall was constructed along the same. No private land was encroached by the department. Further the petitioner or any person did not raise any objection during construction regarding boundary/encroachment of land. 5. It is submitted that the compound wall was constructed along the boundary of department land without encroaching any other land and the petitioner did not raise any objection during construction of the same at predefined and existing boundaries and hence the construction is not illegal. 6. It is submitted that the allegations made by the petitioners in the other paragraphs against us are not at all correct and the question of deviation of rules by us never arises or can never arose. It is further submitted that the respondents never denied the petitioners legitimate and legal rights. The petitioners having knowledge about the entire said facts have purposefully filed this Writ Petition for troubling us and stall the ongoing work.” 3 4. The above extract would clearly indicate that the compound wall was constructed by the Respondents without encroaching upon the private land. The photographs at Ex.P.2 that were filed in the year 2013 itself would indicate that the Official Respondents have already commenced the construction and the said construction proceeded as there was no stay on the construction. 5. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this Writ Petition pending. Since the Court also did not restrain the Respondents from proceeding with the construction, the Respondents have completed the construction process long time ago. 6. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 05.08.2025 Vns