IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 129 of 2008 Between: The Vizagpatnam Diocesan Corporation Pvt Ltd., rept by its Director, FR. Joseph Arch Bishop's House, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority rep by its Vice- Chairman, Gandhi Place, Siripuram Junction, Visakhaptnam .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the possession of the lands of Petitioner of Total Extent of Ac. 11.32 cents in S. Nos. 87/16, 85/12, 85/3, 85/11, 86/11, 86/8 83/1, 85/5, 84/11, 87/1, 83/1, 84/2, 84/4, 84/6, 85/7, 85/6, 84/3, 84/8, 83/1, 83/2, 83/3, 84/9, 84/10, 84/4, 85/3, 85/6, 85/2 86/8, 37/1, and 83/1 in Mallayyapalem Village,Madhuravada Visakhapatnam District by demolishing a part of the compound wall enclosing the said lands for laying a road across the said lands of the petitioner as arbitrary and illegal and direct the respondent not to interfere with the possession of the lands of the petitioner except in accordance with the due process of law as contemplated under law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.S.R.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent: MRS.V.PREETI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the present writ petition, the respondent has notified the land in question under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) and, therefore, the relief sought for in the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 01-05-2009 ks/ktl