IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1090 of 2008 Between: 1. Samata, A Non-Governmental Organisation, represented by its Executive Director, Rabbapragada Ravi, S/o. R.K.Rao, R/o. Gokhale Road, Maharanipet, Visakhapatnam. 2 LEAD Visakha Foundation a Registered Trust, represented by its Founder Trustee Pusapati Sitrarama Raju, S/o. P. Narasimha Raju, R/o Flat No.401, Lakshmi Apartments, Kailash Meta, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Visakhapatnam urban Development Authority, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam represented by its Vice -Chairman. 3 District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in auctioning the Ac.61.83 cents of land spread over Rushikonda, Madhurawada andKapuluppada Villages which includes the hills and hill slopes falling within the Tarakarama Satellite Township near Visakhapatnam mentioned in the web site and the date of auction is 27-1-2008 as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently restrain the respondents from auctioning, alienating the hills and hill slopes as mentioned supra in the Tarakarama Satellite Township area or from taking any developmental activity upon the hills andhill slopes of Tarakarama Satellite Township near Visakhapatnam. Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. K.S. MURTHY Counsel for Respondent No.1: G.P., MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr. M. Ravindranath Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.3: G.P., REVENUE. The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Anil. R. Dave) The learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the order passed in W.P.No.18670 of 2007, dated 26-06-2008, this petition does not survive for the reason that the facts in the aforesaid case and the present case are similar. The said petition, which was a public interest litigation, was based on G.O.Ms.No.911, M.A. & U.D. (I2) Department, dated 09-11- 1987 and the case of the petitioners therein was that in view of the said G.O., certain lands could not have been sold by the Government or its agencies. However, during the course of hearing of the said petition, as the learned Advocate General has submitted that G.O.Ms.No.911, dated 09-11-1987 has been withdrawn by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.228, M.A. & U.D. (H2) Department, dated 13-03-2008 and the said fact could not be disputed by the learned advocate for the petitioners therein, the petition was disposed of observing that it does not survive for adjudication. In the circumstances, placing on record the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. July 8, 2008 MRR