APHC010523012017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 28093/2017 Between: 1. KOTA GOVINDA RAO, S/O. LATE VENKATA RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC.:BUSINESS, RIO. D.NO.21-32-6, CHENGALRAOPETA, KOTHA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. STATE PRESENTLY RESIDES AT D.NO.23-3-1/1 AND 2, AVN COLLEGE DOWN, GANNERU STREET, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. KOTA RAMAYYA, S/O LATE VENKATA RAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.21-32-6, CHENGALRAOPETA, KOTHA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. STATE PRESENTLY RESIDES AT D.NO.23-3-1/1 AND 2, AVN COLLEGE DOWN, GANNERU STREET, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI- 522237, TULLURU MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL, CORPORATION, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER, TENNETI BHAVAN, NEAR RTC COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. K SRIDHAR, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O. VINAR TAILORS, D.NO.21-32-6, CHENGALRAOPETA, KOTHA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. STATE. 2 4. VASU, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.21-32-6, 1ST FLOOR, CHENGALRAOPETA, KOTHA ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. STATE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMA MURTY P V S A Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV (TG) 2. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY(SC FOR GVMC) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- There is no appearance on behalf of the petitioners. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive any further, as the writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 24.08.2015, whereby the building was proposed to be demolished on account of its dilapidated condition. 3. It is submitted that after filing of the writ petition, the writ petitioners has sold the property to a third party and that the third party had demolished the entire structure and obtained permission for constructing a new building. The respondent authorities have granted permission for construction. 4. Recording the same, nothing further remains to be adjudicated. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt. 10.09.2025 SR