IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20550 OF 2002 Between: Pratap Gupta …Petitioner and The Collector and District Magistrate, Nizamabad And three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Y.Neelakanta Reddy for Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao Counsel for respondents 1 & 2: None appeared Counsel for respondents 3 & 4: Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy The Court made the following O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings vide No.E2/3253/2002, dated 09.09.2002 issued by the first respondent which was addressed to the 2nd respondent with regard to regularisation of encroachment of the entire backyard area covered by bore well and bathroom toilets and tin shed of the respondents 3 and 4 and quash the same by issuing a writ of Certiorari by duly declaring the proceedings issued by the first respondent requesting the 2nd respondent to take necessary action to regularise the encroachment of the entire backyard area covered by bore well and bath room toilets and tin shed of the respondents 3 and 4 herein without any notice either to the petitioner or to his family members as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the true intent of the judgment rendered by the Junior Civil Judge, Bodhan in O.S.No.135 of 1997 dated 14.06.2002 and also A.P.Municipalities Act and the Rules made thereunder.” At the hearing, Sri Y.Neelakanta Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that during the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.2 executed sale deed dated 05.07.2004 in favour of the father of the petitioner in respect of part of the disputed land and that therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, however, submitted that the said sale deed was not valid in law. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed with the execution of the sale deed, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous with liberty to respondents 3 and 4 to avail appropriate remedy at their option, if they seek to challenge the validity of the above mentioned sale deed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 14th October, 2009 vrn