IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTFIRST MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WP.No. 19496 of 1999 Between: V. Sudhakar Rao ..... Petitioner V/s. The Revenue Divisional Officer Vijayawada. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. Lakshma Reddy Smt. K. Sesharajyam Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue The Court made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WP.No. 19496 OF 1999 O R D E R : Assailing the notice in RC.No. A4.1570/99, dated 23-7-1999 issued by the respondent, whereunder the petitioner and others were directed to remit a sum of Rs.14,47,040-00 as stamp duty and penalty with reference to an agreement of sale dated 31-3-1995. 2. The petitioner and three others entered into an agreement of sale with Velagaleti Durga Devi and Velagaleti Satyavathi in respect of certain land. In order to secure the performance of the agreement, the petitioner and another filed suit, OS.No. 115 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, impleading the vendors as defendants 1 and 2 and the other two vendees as defendants 3 and 4. In the said suit, IA.No. 1422 of 1997 was filed to send the document to the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada along with letter dated 22-4-1999. Pursuant thereto, the respondent issued the impugned demand notice dated 23-7-1999 calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount as mentioned in the said notice. The said notice is challenged on the principal ground that necessary procedure including the issuance of notice which is mandatory has not been followed. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, it appears that the dispute in the suit was referred to the Lok Adalath Bench constituted by the Krishna District Legal Services Authority, Vijayawada and the dispute was settled between the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 on 15-3-2002 without reference to the agreement of sale dated 31-3- 1995. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the said settlement necessary sale deed was executed and registered between the parties. In view of the same, the notice dated 23-7-1999 impugned in this writ petition has become redundant and does not require adjudication. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions that without reference to the agreement of sale dated 31-3-1995 the dispute was settled in the Lok Adalath and execution of registered sale deed pursuant thereto which in effect the petitioner has given up his claim under the agreement of sale dated 31-3-1995, the impugned notice has become redundant. In this view of the matter, the writ petition does not survive for adjudication on merits. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ Justice Noushad Ali. 31-05-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 1 9 4 9 6 OF 1999 Circulation Entry No. 59 Date: 31-05-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L