APHC010440032015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 29432/2015 Between: Pothina Singanna ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S A V RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV (TG) 2. 3. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR (SC FOR VMRDA and MUDA) 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 a suitable writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent not to approve the layout on the application of the 3rd and 4th Respondent in respect of land to an extent of Ac.1-49 cents covered by S.Nos. 20/2 and 2013 of Nidigattu Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass…” 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Acs.1.49 cents covered by Sy.Nos.20/2 and 20/3 of Nidigatu Village, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. While so, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have tried to encroach the petitioner’s land aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed a civil suit vide O.S.No.831 of 2015 on the file of II Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction and has also filed I.A.No.450/2015 seeking temporary injunction, wherein initially status quo was ordered and thereafter, temporary injunction was granted. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the same, the 2nd respondent is intending to approve the layout basing on the application submitted by the 3rd and 4th respondents in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.1.49 cents covered by S.Nos.20/2 and 20/3 of Nidigattu village, Bheemunipatnam mandal, Visakhapatnam district. Hence the present writ petition is filed. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 11.09.2015, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…In view of the above facts and circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the objections filed by the petitioners while granting layout permission to the respondents 3 and 4.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 6. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions received from the respondent authorities dated 22.01.2025 wherein it is stated that the respondents have issued a letter vide Rc.No.8538/2015/L7, dated 23.12.2015 to the petitioner informing him that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have submitted a revised layout plan for an extent of Acs.9.38 cents in Sy.Nos.20/1p, 3p and 47/1p, 3p of Nidigattu Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam as against the original layout plan for an extent of Acs.14.57 cents in Sy.Nos.20/p and 47/p with a written assurance by way of undertaking-cum-indemnity bond that they have excluded the lands covering an extent of Acs.1.49 cents in the above revised layout plan. 7. It is further stated that the respondent authorities have approved the layout vide LP.No.63/2016 to an extent of Acs.9.38 cents in SY.Nos.20/1, 20/3, 47/1, 47/3 of Nidigattu village, Bheemunipatnam mandal, Visakhapatnam in favour of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 duly excluding the petitioner’s lands. 8. The facts of the writ petition are not in dispute. It can be seen that the respondent Nos.3 and 4, in pursuance of the temporary junction granted by the court below, have submitted a revised layout plan for an extent of Acs.9.38 cents in Sy.Nos.20/1p, 3p and 47/1p, 3p of Nidigattu Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam as against the original layout plan for an extent of Acs.14.57 cents in Sy.Nos.20/p and 47/p duly excluding the petitioner’s land of an extent of Acs.1.49 cents which was also approved by the respondent authorities by excluding property of the petitioner herein. 9. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition would not survive for further adjudication. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:05.02.2025 Gss