APHC010351782017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 8886/2017 Between: P.vidyadhara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J U M V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. P VENKAT REDDY 4. S PRANATHI 5. ELEVATED AS JUDGE 6. VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA The Court made the following: ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 & 3 in not taking any action in pursuance to the representation dated 16.2.2017 bringing to their notice the high handed and illegal activity of the 4th respondent in trying to lease out his properties for Govenrment offices and commercial usage situated in ,Sri Mahendra Enclave, construction in Sy.No. 82/1C, 2C and 91 of Tadepalli village & Mandal, Guntur District even though the same was declared to be residential zone by the 2nd respondent as being as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to accord any relaxation/permission for conducting commercial activity at the aforesaid property, and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice…” 2. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the flat No.2 in 2nd floor of NRI Block-C, Sri Mahendra Enclave of Tadepalli village and Mandal, Guntur having purchased the same vide registered sale deed bearing document No.7126/2014, dated 14.07.2014 and the petitioner No.1 herein is the absolute owner and possessor of flat No.1, Third Floor of NRI Block-C, Sri Mahendra Enclave of Tadepalli village and Mandal, Guntur having purchased the same vide registered sale deed bearing document No.2010/2010, dated 25.03.2010. The 4th respondent herein is the person who has constructed the aforesaid residential building and is having his share of flats in the same building. When the State was searching for office space for shifting its offices in view of bifurcation of the two States, the 4th respondent has offered his share of flats for providing office spaces in the aforesaid residential building. Aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent in allotting his share of flats for the Government offices in the said residential building, the petitioners have submitted a representation dated 16.02.2017 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 bringing the said action of the 4th respondent to their notice, but it has not yielded any result. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 14.03.2017, this Court has directed the respondents not to accord any relaxation/permission for conducting commercial activity or to Government Offices in Sri Mahendra Enclave, construction in Sy.No.82/1C, 2C and 91 of Tadepalli Village and Mandal, Guntur District. 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that the 3rd respondent has issued a provisional notice dated 20.03.2017 under Sections 108, 115(1) of APCRDA Act, 2014 and thereafter, a confirmation notice was also issued on 28.03.2017, pursuant to which, the 4th respondent has submitted his explanation to the Zonal Assistant Director, APCRDA on 08.04.2017 stating that after bifurcation of the two States, the State of Andhra Pradesh has directed to shift all administrative offices from Hyderabad to the capital zone situated at Amaravati, Vijayawada and Guntur with immediate effect and as such, the said flats were rented out to A.P. State Council for Higher Education for a short period. It is further stated that, as on the date of filing the counter affidavit, the A.P. State Council for Higher Education had already occupied and was running its office for temporary purpose in the subject building and that whenever the Government Offices become ready to be occupied, the A.P. State Council for Higher Education would be shifted to the said premises. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Balaji Medimalli, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Ms. S. Pranathi, learned Standing Counsel for CRDA and Mrs. V. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality. 6. During the course of hearing, Sri. Balaji Medimalli, learned counsel for the 4th respondent has submitted that, pending the present writ petition, the A.P. State Council for Higher Education which has initially occupied the flats of the 4th respondent, was shifted in pursuance of the interim order dated 14.03.2017 and that as on today, the A.P. State Council for Higher Education is not in occupancy of the flats of the 4th respondent in Sri Mahendra Enclave, Sy.No.82/1C, 2C and 91 of Tadepalli village and Mandal, Guntur District. 7. In view of the fact that the A.P. State Council for Higher Education, has already vacated the said premises, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition would not survive for further adjudication. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 06.02.2025 GSS