- (1.)By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) Your Lordships be graciously pleased to admit and allow this petition and be further pleased to declare the impugned notice dtd. 20/2/2017 as absolutely against all cannons of law over and above being without jurisdiction, illegal and is not enforceable against the petitioner under the guise of proposed road widening So far the property in question of the petitioner is concerned.

[B] Your Lordships be graciously also pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the procedure adopted by the respondent corporation to acquire the portion of the property in question belonging to the petitioner for prescribed road line as the same is against the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

[C] Any other appropriate order or orders as deemed fit, be also passed.

[D] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be graciously pleased to restrain the respondent corporation authorities from executing and/or implementing the impugned notice dtd. 20/2/2017 Annex. G in any manner whatsoever in respect to the property of the petitioner by demolishing the Super structure and taking possession of land portion of the property earmarked with yellow line in the property in question belonging to the petitioner for the purpose of prescribed road line and an appropriate writ, direction or order be also directed to be issued to the respondents in this behalf in the interest of justice.

[E] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, it be also directed to the respondents to follow the acquisition procedure under the New Land Acquisition Act, 2013 and acquisition as per G.P.M.. Act first and provide compensation in terms of land only to the petitioner and thereafter, implement the proposed road line and an appropriate writ, direction or order bed also directed to be issued to the respondents in that behalf."

(2.)Even before the matter could be heard on merit, Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate for Vadodara Municipal Corporation draws attention of this Court to the averments made in para 4 of the the affidavit in reply dtd. 27/6/2017 filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. Para 4 of the said affidavit reads as under:
"4 I say that the notice dtd. 20/2/2017 impugned in the present petition has been acted upon by the Corporation, and the illegal and unauthorized construction standing on a public street has been removed by the Corporation. 1 submit that the basis for the petition therefore stands lost, and consequently the petition in the present form does not deserve to be entertained by the Hon'ble Court."

(3.)By pointing out to the aforesaid affidavit in reply, learned advocate Mr.Nanavati states that notice which is under challenge by way of this petition has already been acted upon, and therefore, this petition has become infructuous. On instructions, learned advocate Mr.Nanavati further states that once the encroachment was removed, the petitioner applied for revised permission, which has been granted by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed at the relevant point of time and nothing remains to be done in the present petition.