IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9741 of 2008 Between: Dasari Krishnaiah, S/o. Bhagavanthu, R/o.H.No.5-200, Ambedkarnagar, Makthal(Post), Makthal Mandal, MahaboobNagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Office of the Tahsildar, Rep by its M.Anantha Reddy,Tahsildar, Makthal(Post), Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobanagar District. 2 District Collector, Mahaboobnagar,Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Executive Officer, Grampanchayat, Makthal (post), Makthal Mandal, Mahaboobanagar District. 4 Smt.Dilshad, W/o. K.Krishnaiah,R/o.H.No.5-200, Ambedkarnagar,Makthal (Post) and Mandal, Mahaboobanagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to (i) to quash the order dated 2.02.2008 passed by the 1st respodent , M.Anantha Reddy, Thasildar, Makthal, to chang the ownership of H.No.5-200, which stands in the name of the petitioner to 4th respondent and (ii) quash the order passed by the District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District, to transfer all the Government benefits of the petitioner to 4th respondent by passing an appropriate orders or direction, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 2.02.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, unjust nad contrary to law, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AJAY KUMAR KULKARNI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- When this matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has produced an Endorsement dated 20.06.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent-District Collector, wherein it is indicated that the orders dated 10.12.2007 passed by the District Collector transferring all the Government benefits of the petitioner to the 4th respondent, have been withdrawn, and submitted that no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition, and accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 2nd July, 2009 bcj