IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 9520 of 2008 Date: 28.04.2014 Between:
M. Siva Prasad.
… Petitioner And Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Endowments, Hyderabad, & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 9520 of 2008 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This writ petition has been filed in March 2008 for the following relief;
“… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 13 in initiating action against respondents 14 to 39 herein as arbitrary, illegal, capricious, highhanded and Articles 14, 25 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being in violation of the various statutory provisions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, A.P. Urban Areas Development Act and the rules made thereunder, A.P. Record of Rights and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and the rules made thereunder, Indian Stamp Act, Registration Act, Electricity Act and also being in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents to bring the culprits to book and protect the property of an extent of Ac.113 situate in S.Nos.104/1, 104/2, 105 to 108, 109/1, 112/3, 114/3, 115/3, 116/3, 117/2, 121/3, 122/3, 126 and part of 134 situate in Kondapur village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.”
This matter was taken up for hearing on 20.04.2008 and on a prayer, the same was adjourned on that day. On 30.06.2008, 17.09.2008 and 15.10.2008 it appears that the matter was adjourned simply. Neither any interim order was passed nor the writ petition was admitted. Looking at the prayer and in view of the subsequent development took place during the pendency of the writ petition by reason of repealing of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, nothing survives in this matter.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand dismissed.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 28.04.2014 ES