IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 571 of 2008 Between: T.G.R.Krishna Reddy S/o.Sri Krishna Reddy R/o. 6-1-203, Old C.I.B. Quarters, Khairatabad, Hyderabad - 500 004. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, R & B Circle, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2 The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. 3 The Dy. Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Tanuku, West Godavari District. 4 The Assistant Executive Engineer, R & B SEction Penumantra, West Godavari District. 5 Sri Kokkirala Satyanarayana S/o.Sri Venkata Rao Natta Rameswaram, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in deviating from the approved alignment from the center line of the existing B.T. Road for laying the proposed C.C. Road under AGreement C.R.No.15 of 2007-2008 in the limits of the petitioner's residential house bearing Door No. 2-56 and also vacant site situated in R.S.No. 102 abutting Attili-Iragavaram Road in Natta Rameswaram Village, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to pay the C.C. Road without encroaching into the above said property of the petitioner, by duly following the measurements specified in the approved Technical Estimate mentioned in the concerned agreement and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.571 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER Sri K.Kishore, Advocate representing Sri N.Siva Reddy the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Recording the said submission the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 1st JUNE 2009 *TSNR