IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15063 of 2007 Between: Sri Gandam Narsimulu S/o.late Gandam Sattaiah R/o.H.No.2-2-116 & 116/1, Kidwaipet, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Municipal Commissioner, Mahabubnagar, Municipality, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 3 Sri Gandam Laxminarayana S/o.Late Sri Gandam Kistaiah R/o. MIG-240, Housing Board Colony, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar 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 pass a writ order or direction more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order dated 6.7.2007 in Proc.Roc.No.A2/2700/2007 passed by 2nd respondent as illegal, unenforceable, per se and void, and consequently directing the 2nd respondent to remove the name of 3rd respondent from the Municipal records in respect of the premises bearing No.2-2-116 & 2-2- 116/1, situated at Kidwaipet, Mahabubnagar in Mahabubnagar District, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.DHANANJAI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 15063 of 2007 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated 06.07.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent-Municipal Commissioner of Mahaboobnagar whereunder it was decided to include the name of the 3rd respondent herein and his brother against the House bearing Nos.2- 2-116 and 2-2-116/1 in modification of the earlier proceedings dated 19- 07-2002 is arbitrary and illegal. This Court, while directing Rule Nisi, by order, dated 16.07.2007 suspended the impugned proceedings dated 06.07.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent are closely related. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice that during the pendency of this writ petition there was a partition between the families of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and in the said partition the House Nos.2-2-116 and 2-2-116/1 fell to the share of the father of the writ petitioner. The said fact was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent by an application dated 29.11.2007 with a request to delete the names of the 3rd respondent and his brother against the houses in question and to restore the name of the writ petitioner. Pursuant to the said application, the 2nd respondent passed a fresh order dated 04.12.2007 thereby cancelling the earlier order dated 06.07.2007 and restored the name of the petitioner in the municipal records. In view of the subsequent events, it is clear that the order impugned in this writ petition dated 06.07.2007 is not subsisting as on today. Hence no further enquiry is necessary in the writ petition on merits. Accordingly, recording the fact that the impugned order dated 06.07.2007 has been cancelled by the 2nd respondent by virtue of the subsequent order dated 04.12.2007, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. __________________ G.ROHINI. J 10th June, 2009. Yvl/gbs