IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1171 of 2002 Between : M/s. Sri Devi Kalyan Estates Residents Welfare Society, Rep. by its President, Lt. Col. V.A. Nair (Retd.), S/o. Late Sri S.V.Panicker, a Society registered under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Societies Registration Act vide Reg.No.4545/2000, R/o. Plot No. 57, Sri Devi Kalyan Estates, Yapral, Hyderabad - 500 087. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, M.A. & U.D. Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, REp. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 M/s. Gowda Saraswatha Samaj, Rep. by its President, V.S. Kamath, R/o. P-16 D, Aswini Nagar Colony,West Marredpally, Secunderabad-26. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the sale of the land made by the 2nd Respondent in favour of 3rd Respondent in respect of 3% of the land admeasuring Ac.16.17 gts. situated in Sy.No.193 of Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent not to make any construction of Kalyana Mandapam or any other structure in the said area of land. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER : In the writ petition, the petitioner/Welfare Association has questioned the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.3/Samaj. 2. When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/Samaj has submitted that they have already surrendered the land in question to HUDA, on 04.07.2003 and they are not interested in again pursuing for allotment of the said land. In view of the said submission of the learned counsel for 3rd respondent, even the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the writ petition may be closed, by recording the same. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3 that they have already surrendered the land in question to HUDA, this writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th April 2009 ajr