IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24999 of 2007 Between: 1. Chava Sriramulu, S/o.Subbaramaiah, R/o.D.No.76-8-8/2, Crombay Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. 2. Dammapalapati Suseela, W/o.Nageswara Rao, R/o.D.No.76-8- 8/3, Crombay Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. 3. Konda Rangamma, W/o.K.V.Ranga Reddy, R/o.D.No.76-14-97, Crombay Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada-12. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Building, Vijayawada. 2 The City Planner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna Dt. 3 The Assistant City Planner-I, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....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 call for concerned records and issue an appropriate Writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring that the actions of the respondents in nature of mandamus declaring that the actions of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice dated 15-11-2007 and 6-9-2007 threatening to remove petitioners houses bearing Municipal D.Nos.76-8-8/2, D.No.76-8- 8/3, SD.No.76-14-97 in R.S.No.66/1 in ward No.31/1 situated at Crombay Road, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada respectively for the purpose of widening of the road without following the due process of law for acquisition of the land required for widening is arbitrary, illegal, capricious, unjust, whimsical and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and set aside the impugned notices UC.No.16/2007/Tpbo-1, UC.No. /2007/TPBO-1, UC.No.15/2007/TPBO-1 dated 15-11-2007 issued to the petitioners respectively and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish/remove petitioners house in the interests of justice and pass such other order/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.V.RAMA SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: SMT. G.JHANSI, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : ORDER: Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents- Corporation submits that the petitioners have given consent and consequently the beneﬁts under G.O.Ms.No.33 M. A., dated 03.02.2001 have been granted to them and therefore, the cause in the writ petition does not survive. The said factual aspect has not been controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th September, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}