IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26115 of 2000 Between: M/s Grama Seva Sangam (Registation No. 11/1959 Rep. by its General Secretary B. Surayanarayana,S/o. late Sreeramulu Sangam Office, R/o. 1-1-29, Kotha Venkojipalem, H.B. Colony Post, Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Principle Secretary Revenue (Endowments - IV) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 District Collector, Visakhapatnam 3 Regional Joint Commissioner and Executive Officer., Sree Varahalakshmi Nursimha Swami Deveasthanam, Simhachalam., ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.KRISHNA K.GAHLOTH FOR MR V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.ADINARAYANA RAJU The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for the following substantive relief: “It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any declaring that the action of the ﬁrst respondent in ﬁxing encroachment regularization price for non-scheduled caste encroachers at Rs.3000/- while ﬁxing the same at Rs.1600/- per square yard in respect of encroachers belonging to SC community in respect of Sy.No.275 of Adivivaram Village, Visakhapatnam District as per Serial No.IX annexure IIIA of G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19-08-2000 is arbitrary and discriminatory and hence unconstitutional and direct the respondents to regularize the encroachment of non-schedule caste encroachers also at the price of Rs.1600/- per square yard as per the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19-08-2000 and grant such other relief.” At the hearing, Smt Krishna K.Gahloth, learned counsel representing Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19-08- 2000, the validity of which is questioned in this writ petition, has been superseded and is not in force, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th September, 2008 vrn