APHC010738952016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 34199 OF 2016 Between: 1. Dhara Nagar Vikram Singh,, S/o.late D.Vijay Singh, Aged 37 years, R/o.F.No.203, Prakash Nagar, Teja Garden Apartments, Kurnool, Kurnool District - 518004 ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2. The District Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Sabbavaram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 5. The Chief Engineer, 400KV Construction, Room No.207 B-Block, APTRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha,Khairatabad, Hyderabad-82 ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY DESAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) Counsel for the Respondents:N SIVA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) 2 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: None present for the Writ Petitioner. 2. Heard Sri Tallapragada Sriram, learned Junior Standing Counsel for APTRANSCO appearing for Respondent No.5. 3. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the Respondents in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Writ Petitioner from the land in Orvakallu Gram Panchayat, Kurnool District with regard to an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.508. The Docket Sheet would indicate that an ad-interim Order of Status-quo was granted on the first date of hearing i.e., on 30.09.2016, and thereafter, extended for a period of eight weeks on 21.11.2016. Thereafter, neither the Interim Order has been extended nor the matter was listed again. 4. Heard Sri Tallapragada Sriram, learned Junior Standing Counsel for APTRANSCO appearing for Respondent No.5. He would submit that no cause of action survives, inasmuch as the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2016. Agreeing with the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5, this Court is of the view that no cause survives in the present Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. No Order as to Costs. 5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 31.10.2025 JKS 3 60 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 34199 OF 2016 31.10.2025 JKS