Karri Pratap Reddy, S/O Sal Baba Reddy, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

Present

Between:

Karri Pratap Reddy, S/o. Sai Baba Reddy, Aged about 27 years, Hindu, Occ: Business, R/o. Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District & 3 others .. Petitioners AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj Department), Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad & 6 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioners claim to be the residents of Pasalapudi Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. According to the petitioners, land to an extent of 445.18 square yards belongs to the 6th respondent, whereas she lives in Amalapuram. The 7th respondent, who has recently retired from Government service started construction of temple in the site of the 6th respondent. All the neighbours surrounding the said property have objected for construction of Sai Baba Temple and have submitted several representations to the respondent authorities. Alleging that the said representations are not disposed of and that the 7th respondent is undertaking construction at a brisk pace and such construction has no prior permission from the District Collector as required by Rule 26 of Rules 2002, this writ petition is filed.

2. The 5th respondent Gram Panchayat has filed counter affidavit. According to the averments in para 5 of the counter affidavit, the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat has rejected the application submitted on the behalf of the 6th respondent on 26.06.2015 for construction of temple and a notice was also issued to the 6th respondent on 09.06.2015 directing not to make any further construction.

3. Having regard to the fact that the 5th respondent Gram Panchayat has already taken action on the alleged illegal construction taken up by respondents 6 and 7, the grievance of the petitioners stood attended and the cause in the writ petition does not survive.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. _________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 18th August, 2015 KL

Date: 18th August, 2015 KL