APHC010333692018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 15332/2018 Between: 1. A SIVA PARVATHI, AKUNURU SIVA PARVATHI, W/O VISHNU MAHESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O FF-1, SAI RESIDENCY, MLA OFFICE ROAD, PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT KRISHNA DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF AP, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (M2) DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT GUNTUR 2. A P CAPITAL REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAWADA 3. ANNABATTUNI LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO, S/O SAMBASIVA RAO, R/O PLOT NO.73, LAKSHMIPURAM COLONY, PORANKI VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): NJS,J W.P No.15332 of 2018 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V S R ANJANEYALU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P PRABHAKAR RAO 2. S PRANATHI 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV NJS,J W.P No.15332 of 2018 3 The Court made the following Order: The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings dated 08.03.2018 issued by the respondent No.2 as illegal, ultra vires and violative of Article 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014. A direction was also sought to the respondent No.2 not to permit the respondent No.3 to make any construction, pursuant to the said proceedings. 2. At the time of considering the matter, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, submits that though the petitioner sought suspension of the impugned proceedings granting building permission, no interim orders were granted and finally that the construction was completed long back. He also submits that in fact, the parties in respect of the very same subject matter property entered into a compromise and an Award was passed on 22.12.2020 in Lok Adalat Case No.3059 of 2020. In view of the same, he submits that nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition. 3. The construction stated to have been made by the respondent No.3 was also confirmed by Mr. Abhishek Malik, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. In view of the above stated position, the writ petition is closed, as the cause does not survive for adjudication. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:27.02.2026 Ksj