APHC010353522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.17932 OF 2025 Between: M.Neelakanta, S/o M.Prabhakar, age 31 years, Occ:Business, R/o D.No.23-8-83, Royal Nagar, Tirupati. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devsthanams (TTD) at Tirupati, Represented by its Executive Officer, Tirumala Village and Post, Tirupati Mandal and District, and four others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : PILLIX LAW FIRM Counsel for Respondent No.2: G.P. for Endowments Counsel for R.1, R.3 and R.4 : Mr.C.Srinivasa Baba Counsel for respondent No.5 : Mr.P.Durga Prasad The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Mr.Jithendra Palyam, learned counsel representing the petitioner. Also heard Mr.T.Devendra, learned counsel representing Mr.C.Srinivasa Baba, learned Standing Counsel for the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD) representing the respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 and Mr.P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2 WP_17932_2025 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 4 against illegal encroachment to an extent of 3000 Sq.ft and unauthorized construction carried out by the 5th respondent by cutting down 15 trees at south-west side of Sannidhanam Big Hotel area, Tirumala, as against the proceedings dated 23.3.2024 as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for consequential directions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner though sought to advance arguments with reference to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the TTD has drawn the attention of this Court to the Memo dated 03.3.2026 and the Resolution No.473, dated 28.10.2025 annexed to it. 4. As per the said resolution, the TTD Board has taken a decision with regard to cutting down of the trees etc., by the respondent No.5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the said resolution was challenged in Writ Petition No.2456 of 2026. 5. In view of the above stated position, this Court deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to observe that this order would not preclude the petitioner to seek recourse to law, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, pending miscellaneous petitions, including I.A. No.2 of 2025 and I.A. No.1 of 2026, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J March 03, 2026 vasu