APHC010510212015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 804/2015 Between: Mupparthy Darmarao S/o. Venkata Satyanarayana, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 4. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the high handed action of the 3 to 5 respondents influenced by the 8th respondent to demolish the wall by using heavy machinery illegally in the private land without any notice even though the entire matter is in civil in nature and dispute between petitioner and 8th respondent by misusing official power to cooperative with the 8th respondent (in facts the 5th respondent sub inspector of police objected to demolish the wall in the private land without following the due process of law) is highly illegal arbitrary and violative of the article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and apart from the violation of principals of nature justices and consequentially direct the respondents 3 to 5 to restore the demolished wall by rebuilt bear with their own amount under individual capacity and paying damages to the petitioner in respect of mental egony and damage of reputation in the locality as claimed by direct the 1, 2, 6, 7 respondents to take disciplinary action against 3 to 5 respondents for illegal demolition of the wall by misusing official capacity with heavy machinery in the private land as influenced by the 8th respondent and to pass…” 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Sri T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and that the matter has become infructuous. 3. By recording the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 08.01.2025 SRT 328 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.804 of 2015 Date: 08.01.2025 SRT