IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5078 of 2009 Between: Boggula Bondaiah S/o. B. Bhoomaiah, R/o. Boorugupally Village, Medak Mandal, Medak District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Medak Mandal, Medak District. 3 The Boorugupally Grampanchayat, rep. by its Sarpanch Boorugupally Village, Medak Mandal, Medak District. 4 Lanka Lalitha W/o. Lanka Kistaiah R/o. Boorugupally Village, Medak Mandal, Medak District. 5 Lanka Kistaiah S/o. Late Raman R/o. Boorugupally Village, Medak Mandal, Medak District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents no.4 and 5 in raising the illegal structures of basement and flag in survey No.486, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to demolish the said structures erected in the property of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.5078 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 4 and 5 in raising an illegal structure in front of his house and for a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 3 for removal of the illegal structure. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and the learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. The matter was adjourned on various occasions and directions were issued from time to time. Today, it is represented by the learned Standing Counsel that the objectionable structure has since been removed. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not deny this. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, does not subsist. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 6th April 2009 RRB