APHC010712782017 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: 26715/2017 Between: K. Ammannalakshmi, W/o K.sivashankar Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P Rep By Its Prl Secretary Municipal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V SESHAGIRI RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 2. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 3. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO 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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandarnusdeclaring the action of the respondents not to dispossess/interfere/demolish the petitioner house, constructed G+1 floor as per the permission given by the 2nd Respondent, situated at D.No.1- 2-29, Town Police Station. Street, 9th Ward, ChristianPeta Road, Mandapeta, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and high-hand by setting aside the order vide, BA.N0.1061/0039/B/MAND/CHRDAD/2017 Dt:29- 07-2017 of the 2nd Respondent and further direct the respondents to follow due process of law by considering the representation dt.13/7/2017 …” 2. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the house (G+1) admeasuring 52 square meters at D.No.1-2-29, town Police Station Street, 9th ward, Christianpeta road, Mandapeta, East Godavari District, which was built in accordance with the permission accorded by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 03.04.2017. 3. While so, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 11.07.2017 informing the petitioner that she has constructed the subject house against the approved plan and has directed to remove the same; for which the petitioner has submitted an explanation on 13.07.2017. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the said explanation, the 2nd respondent has issued another notice dated 15.07.2017 directing the petitioner to remove the said unauthorized construction within 7 days, upon receipt of which the petitioner has approached the 2nd respondent with a request to drop all the proceedings and to consider her representation dated 13.07.2017. But, without doing so, the 2nd respondent has issued the impugned speaking order dated 29.07.2017 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorized constructions made in the subject property within a period of 15 days. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 09.08.2017, this Court has directed the respondents not to initiate any coercive action pursuant to the impugned notice dated 29.07.2017. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for Municipality. 6. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of instructions of the 2nd respondent dated 06.02.2025 wherein it is stated that pending the present petition, the petitioner has applied for regularization of the subject building under BPS- 2019 scheme and the said building has already been regularized vide BPS No.BPS2019/MAN/2/12077, dated 19.02.2020. 7. In view of the instructions submitted by learned Standing Counsel, 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