JUDGMENT D Ramesh, J. Brief facts in W.P.No.13023 of 2020 are as follows: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of respondent no.7 in not conducting any survey of the land in Sy.No.560/1 Buddayapalle village of Chinnachowk area, Kadapa town and 6th respondent trying to approve the apartment plan and give consent for the construction of an apartment for the application submitted by the respondents 10 to 15 in the house plot in an extent of 484 sq.yards/0-10cents in sy.no.560/1 of Telecomnagar of Chinnachowk village of Kadapa city though objected by the petitioner who is the real owner and pending civil suit/s as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent no.7 to conduct a detailed survey of the subject land besides also not to give consent for the construction of any apartment for the application submitted by the respondents 10 to 15 in the subject house plot. 2. Brief facts in W.P.No.12833 of 2021 are as follows: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of respondent no.6 in not conducting any survey of the land in Sy.No.560/1 in telecomnagar of Buddayapalle village of Chinnachowk area, Kadapa town and 5th respondent trying to approve the plan for construction of apartments and give consent for construction of the same on the application of the respondents 9 to 14 in the petitioner's house plot in an extent of 484 sq.yards/0-10cents in Sy.no.560/1 of Telecomnagar of Chinnachowk village of Kadapa city though objected by the petitioner, who is the real owner and pending some civil suit/s as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent no.6 to conduct a detailed survey of the subject house plot in the presence of respondent no.7 and also direct the 5th respondent not to give any type of approval of the apartment plan besides also not to give consent for the construction of the same on the application of the respondents 9 to 14 in the subject house plot. 3. In both the writ petitions, the writ petitioners are different but the respondents are one and the same and the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence the two writ petitions are being disposed of with a common order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. 3. In both the writ petitions, the writ petitioners are different but the respondents are one and the same and the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same. Hence the two writ petitions are being disposed of with a common order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The petitioner in W.P.No.13023 of 2020 purchased an extent of 484sq.yards/Ac.0.10cents of land in Sy.No.560/1 of Telecomnagar, Chinnachowk village of Kadapa city on 06.11.2015 vide registered sale deed no.4917/2015 from one Smt. P.Venkatasubbamma and her son P.Sreenivasulu Reddy of Chinnachowk, Kadapa city for a valuable consideration. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.12833 of 2021 Sri Jinka Subbareddy, S/o Subba Reddy had purchased an extent of 484sq.yards/10cents in S.No.560/1 of Telecomnagar, Chinnachowk village of Kadapa city vide registered sale deed no.4918/2015 dated 06.11.2015. 6. When the unofficial respondents herein tried to encroach the house site and tried to construct apartments without any right, title, interest and possession over the said property, the petitioners along with other purchasers complained to the municipal corporation of Kadapa and as a sequel the corporation has issued notice on 06.02.2020 to the respondent S.K.V. Constructions stating that without prior approval of the municipal corporation they cannot undertake any construction under section 452 and 461 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1965. The assertion of S.K.V.Constructions is that it has purchased the said land from other respondents. The petitioners have also issued legal notice on 11.02.2020 to Kadapa municipal corporation and other officials not to grant or issue any approvals for construction of any building in favour of S.K.V. Constructions or any other persons during the pendency of the litigation. Infact, the petitioners along with other vendors filed a suit in O.S.38/2019 before the Additional Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa against one Nelaturu Madusudan Reddy and Chittem Uma Sankar and the same is pending adjudication. In fact the said Nelaturu Madusudan reddy and Chittem Uma Sankar have also filed separate suits against the petitioners vide O.S.197/2016 and O.S.198/2016 before the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa and they were disposed of and appeals filed were also numbered as A.S.5/2020 and A.S.6/2020 and they are pending before the I Additional District Court, Kadapa. While the things stood thus, now the SKV Constructions has made false claim saying that it has purchased the subject property from respondent no.11 to 15 to make construction of flats. 7. While the things stood thus, now the SKV Constructions has made false claim saying that it has purchased the subject property from respondent no.11 to 15 to make construction of flats. 7. In fact several parties are making claim for one property and there is a confusion regarding the identification of the property. Hence both the petitioners have paid amount to the municipal corporation of Kadapa to conduct survey of the land by the municipal surveyor and give a quietus to the lis. Accordingly, they have applied by paying the amounts vide challan dated 24.02.2020. As a sequel to the same, the municipal corporation issued notice to the S.K.V. Constructions not to undertake any unauthorized construction without prior approval of the corporation vide notice dated 15.5.2020. Subsequently, the petitioners have also made a complaint to the police on 27.5.2020. When the petitioners have made an application for survey through mee-seva by filing challans on 25.6.2020, no action has been initiated by the authorities. Hence they have approached the Secretary, Sachivalayam on 03.7.2020 asking the authorities to survey the land and give a sketch and the same is also pending. When the competent authorities have not initiated any action, the petitioners have made a complaint to the District Collector and the District Collector in turn informed the municipal commissioner on the representation dated 14.7.2020 to take action as per law and communicate the action taken report. While that being the situation, the petitioners have filed O.S.No.342/2020 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against the respondent nos.9 to 14 seeking declaration and injunction against them and they have also filed an I.A. under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC and the same is pending. Suit is being adjourned due to the pandemic. 8. Despite pendency of litigation and repeated requests made by the petitioners, the authorities are contemplating to issue permission in favour of S.K.V.Constructions for construction of apartments. If once, the respondents constructed the building, the petitioners would get irreparable loss and injury. Hence the writ petitions are filed. 9. Though the petitioners have filed the writ petition in the month of August 2020 on 03.5.2021, this Court has passed the following order. If once, the respondents constructed the building, the petitioners would get irreparable loss and injury. Hence the writ petitions are filed. 9. Though the petitioners have filed the writ petition in the month of August 2020 on 03.5.2021, this Court has passed the following order. ....Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that permission was accorded for construction of the apartment by the Municipal Corporation, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation would submit that he has to verify from the concerned authorities whether any such permission is accorded or not. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today till the next date of hearing. 10. After that the respondent no.10 in W.P.No.13023/2020 i.e. S.K.V. Constructions filed its counter. In the counter he has denied all the allegations made by the petitioners and it is averred that one Chittem Uma Sankar has filed a suit O.S.No.198/2016 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa for permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plot no.14 to an extent of Ac.0.70cents situated in survey no.556 and 557 and the said suit was decreed on 26.9.2019 infavour of plaintiff therein and against to the petitioners herein and his vendors. During the pendency of the suit at the instance of the defendants therein an Advocate Commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.710/2016 to measure the properties of both the parties with regard to their documents with the assistance of surveyor and to file a report. Accordingly, the commissioner was appointed and report was also submitted. But the court below has not taken up the said report into consideration. Because the learned Commissioner has not followed the procedure contemplated under Civil Procedure Code and further he stated that the S.K.V.Constructions has purchased the property from 11th respondent plot no.6 and 7 in an extent of Ac.0.14cents in survey no.560/1 from a rightful owner S.Padmaja under a registered sale deed dated 30.3.2011 i.e. much prior to the sale deeds of the petitioners. He also purchased from respondent nos.12 and 13 in an extent of Ac.0.07cents in Sy.No.560/1 from K.Govindamma under a registered sale deed dated 04.01.2007 and they have also purchased from respondent nos.14 and 15 an extent of Ac.0.03 1/2 cents out of 7 cents of plot no.5A right from one G.Subbamma under two different sale deeds dated 05.01.2011 and all the plots of the respondent nos.11 to 15 are the adjoining and they have in possession and enjoyment of respondent no.11 to 15. Accordingly, the respondent nos.10 to 15 entered into a Joint Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney on 09.12.2019 with S.K.V.Constructions to construct and promote apartments in an extent of Ac.0.28cents in Sy.No.560/1. By virtue of the said agreement, the respondent no.10 i.e. S.K.V.Constructions had applied for building permission and the 6th respondent also granted building permission vide permit no.1013/0133/B/KAD/cch/2020 dated 20.6.2020. When there is a short fall of certain information with regard to door number and ward number which was mentioned as 36 instead of 38, the 6th respondent has issued a notice on 05.7.2020 to stop the work and later on compliance report was submitted by the respondent no.10, the building permit was issued on 13.7.2020. 11. In fact pursuant to the application made by the petitioner on 10.3.2020 for survey of his land of Ac.0.10cents out of Ac.0.40cents in Sy.No.560/1 of Chinachowk village and on that the Assistant City Planner of 6th respondent has visited the plots and issued an endorsement on 12.6.2020. In the said endorsement, it is clearly stated that the total extent in Sy.No.560/1 is Ac.4.02cents and there are no sub-divisions and out of total extent of Ac.4.02cents, there is a layout of Telecom Building Society over an extent of Ac.2.65cents and all the plot owners constructed houses in their respective plots and in the remaining Ac.1.37cents lay out was made and plots were sold and as such, there is no extent of land available in Sy.No.560/1. In view of the said circumstances, there is no possibility to survey the land and fix the boundaries of Ac.0.10cents of the petitioners and finally opined that Ac.0.28cents place is tallying with the layout i.e. the petitioners have no evidence to show that their land is within the construction area. 12. In view of the said circumstances, there is no possibility to survey the land and fix the boundaries of Ac.0.10cents of the petitioners and finally opined that Ac.0.28cents place is tallying with the layout i.e. the petitioners have no evidence to show that their land is within the construction area. 12. In fact after the survey, the petitioners have approached the competent civil court by filing a suit against respondent no.10 to 15 herein, and filed I.A. for interim injunction, the court below has not granted any interim injunction and the same is pending for adjudication. On their failure to get the interim order in O.S.No.342/2020, the present speculative writ petition is filed suppressing the facts. In fact the vendors of the petitioners also filed O.S.No.183/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa against five persons seeking permanent injunction in respect of the land they have sold to the petitioners. The said suit was dismissed though the defendants therein was set exparte vide judgment dated 01.7.2014. In fact in the said suit also the Advocate Commissioner was appointed and according to the Advocate Commissioner's report, after thorough investigation, the Mandal Surveyor expresses his inability to identify the suit schedule property. Basing on the said report, the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa vide Judgment dated 01.7.2014 dismissed it on the ground that the vendors of the petitioners herein are not certain about the location and identity of the suit schedule property and that in view of the report filed by the Commissioner it makes clear that the plaintiffs therein failed to prove the location and identity of the suit schedule property and their possession and accordingly dismissed the suit and that became final and no appeal has been preferred against the said judgment. After dismissal of the said suit filed by the vendors of the petitioners, the petitioners have purchased the present plot in 2015. 13. The Commissioner, Kadapa Municipal Corporation has filed his counter on 26.7.2021. He denied all the allegations made against these respondents and he also denied more specifically about the allegations made against this respondent and a complaint made to the District Collector. Pursuant to the application made by one Jinka Subbareddy i.e. one of the petitioners herein, the Commissioner has ordered for a detailed survey of land in Sy.No.560/1 of Chinnachowk village. He denied all the allegations made against these respondents and he also denied more specifically about the allegations made against this respondent and a complaint made to the District Collector. Pursuant to the application made by one Jinka Subbareddy i.e. one of the petitioners herein, the Commissioner has ordered for a detailed survey of land in Sy.No.560/1 of Chinnachowk village. The Town Surveyor visited the land in Sy.No.560/1 to an extent of Ac.4.02cents. The Town Surveyor visited the said land along with Jinka Subbareddy and verified his documents and found that in the sale deed it has mentioned only Ac.0.10cents out of Ac.0.40cents in Sy.No.560/1, when there is an extent of Ac.4.02cents in Sy.No.560/1. No sub-division took place for the said land. The alleged Ac.0.10cents named by J.Subba Reddy is not in his possession, as out of Ac.4.02cents, Ac.2.65cents covered by telecomnagar with residential houses. Out of the remaining Ac.1.37cents, private layouts were held by dividing the land into different plots and some of the plot purchasers raised constructions. In view of the same, they are unable to identify the Ac.0.10 cents of land of the petitioners. 14. The S.K.V.Constructions has uploaded its plan for sanction by making necessary payments through his application dated 01.02.2020 on-line. Accordingly, after physical verification, building permit was sanctioned vide permit no.1013/10133/B/KAD/cch/2020 dated 20.6.2020. Later on with certain short falls notice has been issued on 05.7.2020 and subsequently after rectifying the mistakes, again the work order was issued on 27.7.2020 again when the respondents were found that the respondent no.10 i.e. S.K.V. Constructions has not paid the vacant land tax for the proposal site. Hence on 09.10.2020 this respondent ordered to stop work and directed the respondent no.10 to 14 to pay the complete vacant land tax through online and comply the short fall. Finally this respondent has issued stop work order on 09.7.2021 as directed in view of the pendency of the litigation before the Hon'ble High Court. Finally in the counter he has stated that by virtue of endorsement there is a due direction in favour of respondent no.10 since there was any restrictive orders from any court of law, the respondents have considered the application and issued permission as per rules. 15. Finally in the counter he has stated that by virtue of endorsement there is a due direction in favour of respondent no.10 since there was any restrictive orders from any court of law, the respondents have considered the application and issued permission as per rules. 15. Learned Counsel Sri S.S.Bhat has mainly relied on the documents filed along with the writ petition i.e. sale deeds dated 06.11.2015 and he has specifically stated that both the writ petitioners purchased Ac.0.10cents of land each in Sy.No.560/1 out of Ac.0.40cents and he has further submitted that before said purchase they have also verified revenue documents as per the documents furnished by the Tahsildar on 05.8.2015 forms which are as per ROR, the land in Sy.No.560/1 of an extent of Ac.9.02cents of Chinnachowk village of Kadapa city was in the name of vendors of the petitioners. As per the adangals dated 06.11.2015 shows the name of the Gummalla Subba Reddy who is the petitioners vendors vendor and after verifying the revenue records, the petitioners have purchased the said property and they are bonafide purchasers in view of the discrepancy in location/identification of the land, the petitioners have submitted request to the 6th respondent Town Planner, Kadapa to survey the land in S.No.560/1 of Chinnachowk village and sub divide the same and hand over to the petitioners. Pending application for survey, the respondent no.10 had contemplated to construct the apartments in the land of the petitioners, he made representation to the Kadapa Municipal Corporation and also issued legal notice on 11.02.2020 requesting not to grant any building permissions to the third parties including S.K.V.Constructions. Considering the representation made by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Kadapa Municipal Corporation has issued notice on 06.02.2020 under section 452(1) and 461(1) of H.M.C.Act wherein they have specifically alleged that the S.K.V.Constructions are making constructions unauthorizedly and the earth work started for foundation without the clear approval of the Kadapa Municipal Corporation. Though the notice was issued by the municipal corporation for unauthorized constructions, respondent no.10 is proceeding with the construction. Though the notice was issued by the municipal corporation for unauthorized constructions, respondent no.10 is proceeding with the construction. Left with no option, the petitioners have also made a complaint to the police on 27.5.2020 and he also made one more application for survey through mee-seva and finally he made a representation to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kadapa bringing all the facts to his notice vide his representation dated 10.7.2020 and requested to take appropriate action against the respondent no.10 for his unauthorized constructions. He further submits that despite his repeated requests when the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation has not initiated any action against the respondent no.10, he made a complaint to the District Collector vide his letter dated 14.7.2020. Responding to the same, the District Collector has requested to take action against the municipal surveyor and do justice in this matter. However he submits that taking all into consideration, the Director, Town Planning Corporation, A.P.Registration Department has issued proceedings on 20.7.2020 to stop the work. The stop work order has been issued by the Director, Town and Country Planning, A.P., Municipal Commissioner has no authority to review the said orders and in view of the pendency of the application made by the petitioner for survey and requested to give a direction to the 6th respondent in W.P.No.12833 of 2021 i.e. Surveyor of Town Planning, Kadapa Municipality to survey the land in Sy.No.560/1 of Chinnachowk Village and demarcate the petitioners lands, till such time the respondents are directed not to make any constructions in the subject land. 16. Reply to the said contentions, Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 10th respondent S.K.V. Constructions has vehemently argued and stated that present writ petition is filed by the petitioners are in abusive process of courts. Initially they have filed a suit in an appropriate court for injunction against the respondent nos.10 to 15 herein and it is not in dispute that they have also filed an I.A. for injunction when the courts below has not granted any interim orders, the petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition. Even according to the averments of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioners are not in a position to locate and identify the property. 17. Even according to the averments of the writ petition, it is clear that the petitioners are not in a position to locate and identify the property. 17. The respondent no.10 i.e. S.K.V.Constructions has made an application after entering into an agreement with respondent nos.10 to 15, S.K.V. Constructions made an application to the Municipal Corporation, Kadapa for grant of permission to construct flats and after physical verification, the said application was considered and permission was granted by the Kadapa Municipal Corporation vide its permit dated June 2020. In fact after notice certain short falls, the respondents have passed a stop order construction on 27.7.2020. Infact in the said order they have clearly mentioned that door number and ward number mentioned as 36 instead of 38 in which LTP are not shown extra purposes site in master plan. So when there is a variation with regard to door numbers they have issued stop work and subsequently if furnished the relevant details they have further granted the permission for construction. 18. Learned Counsel has relied on the judgment and decree in O.S.No.183/2013 dated 01.7.2014 filed by the vendors of the petitioners wherein he relied on the finding in para no.8 and 9 are relevant for the present litigation. ...Except the certified copies of documents creating charge in favour of Devuni Kadapa Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, pattadar passbook and title deed, the plaintiffs have not placed any material to show that Gummalla Subbareddy acquired the suit schedule property from his ancestors. During the pendency of the suit at the instance of plaintiffs a court commissioner was appointed for the purpose of taking measurements of the suit schedule property with the help of Mandal Surveyor. On issuing the notice, the court commissioner visited the suit schedule property and filed his report along with his rough sketch. He also submitted a report filed by the Mandal surveyor with surveyor sketch. Upon perusal of the reports filed by the court commissioner and the Mandal surveyor it makes clear that they could not locate the suit schedule property, but they could locate the entire survey number 560/1 with an extent of Ac.2.10cents.... He also submitted a report filed by the Mandal surveyor with surveyor sketch. Upon perusal of the reports filed by the court commissioner and the Mandal surveyor it makes clear that they could not locate the suit schedule property, but they could locate the entire survey number 560/1 with an extent of Ac.2.10cents.... He stated that though in the said suit, the respondents were made exparte, but the trial court has dismissed the suit that the plaintiffs filed to prove the location and identity of the suit schedule property for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the specific property shown in the plaint schedule. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to prove the location and identity of the suit schedule property, their possession over the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit they are not entitled for permanent injunction. The vendors of the petitioners have filed the suit in the year 2013 and in the said suit, the Advocate-Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the plaintiffs therein and on the report filed by the Commissioner the suit is dismissed only on the ground that the identification of the properties by the plaintiffs in the year 2014. When the vendors of the petitioners are not in a position to locate or identify the properties, the petitioners have purchased in the year 2015 and they cannot claim that the property of respondent nos.10 to 15 is the subject property of their sale deeds. Not only this, they have also filed suits against the vendors vendor against some third parties and the said suit was also dismissed as against the same appeals filed and the same are pending adjudication. In view of the findings of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in O.S.No.183/2013, the petitioners have no right to claim the property of the respondents 10 to 15. In fact the main contention of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that he made an application for survey and the municipal surveyor has not conducted any survey and requesting to conduct survey and identify the property. In fact the main contention of the petitioners in the present writ petition is that he made an application for survey and the municipal surveyor has not conducted any survey and requesting to conduct survey and identify the property. In view of the counter filed by the respondent no.6, it is clear that pursuant to the application made by the petitioners i.e. more specifically Jinka Subbareddy, the municipal surveyor has visited the land in Sy.No.560/1 of Chinnachowk village along with Jinka Subbareddy and surveyed the land and inview of the present status of the land he has expressed his inability, accordingly proceedings were also issued to him. In view of the said circumstances, the writ petition itself is infructuous. No cause of action survives. In view of the pendency of the suits filed by the petitioners against the respondents 10 to 15 herein when they could not be able to obtain the interim orders therein they filed the present petition with a malafide intention. In view of the same requested the court to dismiss the writ petition for abusing process of law. 19. Sri S.S.Bhat, learned Counsel has relied on the judgments reported in between T.rameshwar vs. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and others, (2006) 3 ALD 337 and Smt. Muramalla Padmavathi vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and 4 others, (2016) 3 ALD 650 . On perusing the said two judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the said judgments are not relevant to the present facts of the case. 20. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submits that in fact the petitioners have made a representation to the respondents immediately they have issued notice to the respondent no.10 under section 452 and 465 of H.M.C.Act 1965. After physical verification of the site on the report submitted by the concerned officers, the application of respondent no.10 was considered and permission was granted on 20.7.2020. After noticing certain short falls, the Director, Town Planning has issued an order to stop the construction on 27.7.2020. Subsequently after complying the said objections further permission was granted and in fact this respondent is taking action against the 10th respondent for each and every failure. Only after complying or rectifying the shortfalls, respondent no.10 was permitted to proceed with the construction. Subsequently after complying the said objections further permission was granted and in fact this respondent is taking action against the 10th respondent for each and every failure. Only after complying or rectifying the shortfalls, respondent no.10 was permitted to proceed with the construction. Further interim directions granted by this Court on 03.5.2021, again they have issued notice for stop construction. 21. Learned Counsel further submits that the prayer in the writ petition has became infructuous. In fact pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners, the Surveyor of Town Planning, Kadapa Municipal Corporation has conducted physical verification along with Zinka Subbareddy and given an endorsement after taking the factual position into consideration that it is not possible to survey the said land in view of the existence of telecom residential colony and also the existing houses. Despite the endorsement given by the competent authority, the petitioners are making repeated complaints against the respondents and also putting pressure on the respondents not to make any constructions in the said area and not to grant any permits in the said area. In view of the above, he requested to dismiss the writ petition. 22. Considering the submissions made by both the Counsel and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the issue involved in the present writ petitions are location/identification of the land which requires evidence and the same can be done only on appreciation of evidence by the competent civil courts which is having jurisdiction. On perusal of the decree passed by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa in O.S.No.183/2012 it is made clear that the vendor of the petitioners herein are not in a position to locate or identify the property. Hence the said suit was dismissed. When the vendors of the petitioners themselves are not in a position to locate/identify the plots and after dismissal of the suit, these petitioners have purchased the property, that itself shows that even at the time of sale transaction, they are not in a position to identify the particular piece of land. 23. In view of the above and as per the pleadings and documents clearly shows that a comprehensive civil suit is pending and when there is a factual dispute, this Court cannot interfere in the said aspects as per the rulings of the Apex Court in various judgments. 23. In view of the above and as per the pleadings and documents clearly shows that a comprehensive civil suit is pending and when there is a factual dispute, this Court cannot interfere in the said aspects as per the rulings of the Apex Court in various judgments. Considering the pendency of the civil suit filed by the petitioners before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kadapa, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the facts of both the writ petitions. 24. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order granted in the writ petitions stand vacated. No costs. 25. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in both the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.