APHC010784572014 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: 26874/2014 Between: Rachakonda Vijaya, ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B D MAHESWARA REDDY 2. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni,Standing Counsel For Municipalities 3. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, in trying to demolish the house and evict the petitioner and her family from her house situated in D.No.12-1-194, T.S.No.1787 ru, plot No.44 ru, Old ward No.4, New Ward No.5, Shalimnagar, Prakashnagar, Narasaraopet Town, without Proper inquiry, without considering the requests of the Petitioners, are contrary to the Provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, Contrary to the Principles of Natural Justice, illegal, unjust and violate of fundamental rights enshrined by Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass…” 2. When the matter came up for admission on 11.09.2014, this Court has passed the following interim order: “…In view of the matter, there shall be interim direction as prayed for, directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner’s property situated in D.No.12-1-194, T.S.No.1787 ru, plot No.44 ru, Old ward No.4, New Ward No.5, Shalimnagar, Prakashnagar, Narasaraopet Town, without following due process of law.” 3. Today when the matter came up for hearing, Ms. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has informed this Court that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on11.09.2014, the respondents had not interfered with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject property till date, for which the learned counsel for the petitioner had not refuted and requested this Court to close the writ petition. 4. By recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, the 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: 08.01.2025 SRT 318 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.26874 of 2014 Date: 08.01.2025 SRT