JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - Heard Sri Gajjala Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, representing respondents No.1, 2, 4 to 6, and Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondent No.3-Vinukonda Municipality. 2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs: '...to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 6 in resorting to demolish the petitioner shops/building bearing D.Nos.31-1133, 1134, 31-982, 31-972 and 31-971 situated in Narasaraopet road, Markapur Road, Revenue Ward No.3, Vinukonda Town and Mandel of Palnadu District on the pretext of road widening without issuing any notice opportunity and without acquiring the petitioner property by initiating appropriate acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and without following the due procedure established by law as being illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to take up the aforesaid road widening work only after acquiring the petitioners shops/property in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders.....' 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in resorting to demolish the petitioners' shops/building in question for widening of the road, but without issuing any notice, opportunity, acquisition and payment of compensation is without following due procedure and contrary to the petitioners' right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 5. Sri G. Naresh Kumar, learned counsel, representing respondent No.3-Municipality, on the basis of written instructions obtained from the Commissioner, Vinukonda Municipality, submits that the averments in the writ petition that for widening of the road, by marking portion of the petitioners' house and approaching the petitioners' property, directing them to vacate are all incorrect. The 3rd respondent never informed the petitioners to vacate their shops for the purpose of widening of road. The 3rd respondent never informed the petitioners to vacate their shops for the purpose of widening of road. There are some encroachments on Guntur-Kurnool National High Way which causes traffic jam at peak hours, with respect to which, the 3rd respondent will take steps by following due procedure under law to remove the encroachments, and if for widening of the road the land is required, then also the due procedure shall be followed. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learning counsel appearing for the Municipality, recording the same, no cause of action survives to the petitioners to further prosecute the writ petition, which is accordingly disposed of. 7. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.