Order:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not taking action on the complaints dated 04.09.2015 and 09.12.2015 made by the petitioner in respect of the illegal and unauthorized constructions raised by the fifth respondent in Plot No.1, admeasuring 266 sq. yards, situated in RS No.559/2 of Gollapudi village, Vijayawada Rural as illegal and arbitrary.

The case of the petitioner is that she along with her brother and sister filed OS No.251 of 1984 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties which includes Ac.2-57 cents in RS No.559/2 and to declare the registered relinquishment deed dated 23.05.1972 and sale deeds dated 26.12.1981, 29.12.1981 and 30.12.1981 executed by one Nuthalapati Narayana Rao in favour of M/s. Annapurna Cooperative Building Society as not valid; the said suit was dismissed on 30.10.2000; aggrieved by the same, they filed AS No.1 of 2001 on the file of this Court; pending the said appeal, this Court on 03.01.2009 granted injunction restraining the respondents therein from alienating the suit schedule properties; pending the said appeal, the fifth respondent has purchased Plot No.1, admeasuring 266 sq. yards, situated in RS No.559/2 by a registered sale deed dated 09.09.2014 from Ch.V. Koteswarudu, who in turn purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 16.07.2003 from K. Koteswara Rao represented by his General Power of Attorney holder V. Asurakanth; both the Society and N. Narayana Rao are parties to the suit as well as to the appeal; the said property was alienated by Nuthalapati Narayana Rao the grand father of the petitioner to various parties including M/s. Annapurna Co-operative Building Society; when the petitioner came to know that the fifth respondent raised unauthorized constructions under the guise of permission granted by the third respondent, the petitioner made a representation to the third respondent on 04.09.2015; by virtue of Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (for short ‘the Act’), the Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority (VGTM UDA) was ceased to exist and the second respondent was constituted as its Chairman, hence respondents 2 and 3are bound to take action in accordance with the Act in respect of the illegal constructions made by the fifth respondent; pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner, the officers of the respondents 2 and 3 issued show cause notice under Section 115(1) of the Act on 25.11.2015 and further order under Section 116(1) of the Act on 25.11.2015, but thereafter no action has been taken by the respondents 2 and 3, hence the Writ Petition.

Even though personal notice was served on the fifth respondent on

26.03.2016, none appeared for the fifth respondent nor is there any representation made on his behalf.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that subsequent to the said notice issued under Section 116(1) of the Act, the fifth respondent has applied for regularization of her building and the same was accordingly regularized and hence the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that if the regularization is not done to the subject building of the fifth respondent, the respondents may be directed to proceed in accordance with Section 116(1) of the Act.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, if the regularization of the subject building of the fifth respondent is not done, the second respondent is at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act pursuant to the notice issued under Section 116(1) of the Act on 25.11.2015. The petitioner is also at liberty to challenge the regularization proceedings issued in favour of the fifth respondent, if she is so advised.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, th