APHC010813752015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 6701/2015 Between: Pilla Tammayya Patrudu ...PETITIONER AND State Of Ap Municipal Admn 3 Others and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOMMULA VENKATA RATNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) 3. J DILEEP KUMAR 4. P JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD 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 grant an order, direction or writ, more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seeking to change the alignment of the proposed road widening of 100-0” Feet wide master plan road from Nh-16 (Chandrampalem) to Bakkanapalem Village and in rejecting our Building Application by way of Endorsement dated 24.01.2015, vide B.A.No.10156/2015/ACP-1, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed without jurisdiction and voilative of Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and voilative of the sanctioned master plan approved by the Government of A.P., violative of Principles of Natural Justice, and contrary to provisions of Urban Areas Development Act, 1975, consequently to set aside the orders of rejection of Building Application by the fourth respondent and direct the respondents to take up the road widening strictly in accordance with the existing master plan without affecting our lands and further direct the respondents 3 and 4 to grant Building permission to Air applications bearing No.B.A.No.10156/ 2015/ACP-1 dated 09.01.2015 and pass…” 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, Sri Kommula Venkata Ratna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed this Court that pending the writ petition the draft master plans of the years 2041 and 2051 has been approved by the respondent authorities and as such, 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: 02.01.2025 SRT 229 THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA W.P.No.6701 of 2015 Date: 02.01.2025 SRT