IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16305 of 2000 Between: 1 Neeyhaji Uvajana Sangham, rep. by its President Vora Yogi R/o. Hayathnagar (V) Mandal, Ranga Reddi Dist., 2 Yerra Kistaiah, S/o. Seethaiah, Hayathnagar, R.R.Dist., ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 L.B.Nagar Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy Dist., 2 Hyderabad Urban Develoment Authority, rep. by its Vice- Chairman, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Ch.Manjula, W/o Krupakara Reddy, R/o.Plot No.74, Hayathnagar (V), Ranga Reddy District., 4 T.Sunitha, W/o T.Sekhar Reddy, R/o Serigudem (V) Narayanapur Mandal, Nalgonda Dist., 5 Smt. M.Aruna W/o. M.Bhukpal Reddy, R/o.Plot No.301, Priya Enclave, Taranaka, Secunderabad. 6 S.Krishna Rao, s/o. Bashaiah, R/o. 4-7-669, Eaasamia Bazar, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate wit order or direction and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to rectify modify the santioned lay-out granted by the then Hayathnagar Gram Panchayat in sy.no.13,23 and 25 in favour of Mohd.Raheemuddin s/o. sheik Jhand Saheb, to ensure that 1000 sq. yards of parkearea is maintained which is covered by plot no,70 to 75 of the layout and the gram kantham village burrial ground and and in sy.no.12 are deleted from the said layout and further direct respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that respondents 3 to 6 should not make construction in the said land plots, if necessary by declaring that the construction permission granted by the 1st respondent to respondent 3 to 6 in the respect of park area is legal and consequently. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 16305 of 2000 O R D E R : It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated: 19-02-2009 KLP