The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.22599 of 2007 Dated 15th June, 2010 Between: Mr.S.K.Sarawagi & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. …Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh and 10 others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr.A.Veeraswamy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP for Civil Supplies Counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 11: None appeared The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.2 to 6 in handing over possession of the land leased to the petitioner in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.166, Industries and Commerce (M-III) Department, dated 27-06-2007, and the consequential lease deed, dated 14-08-007, as illegal and arbitrary. After filing of the Writ Petition, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit along with material papers wherein it is inter alia stated that after receiving notices in this Writ Petition, respondent Nos.9 to 11 made a representation on 23-01-2008 to respondent No.6 with a request to cancel their D Form pattas and that the said respondents have surrendered the original D Form Pattas, pattadar pass books and title deeds. It is further stated that respondent No.6 forwarded the representations of the said respondents along with his report and relevant records to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, and that the said Officer after examining the same, issued proceedings, dated 15-05-2008, wherein he directed the Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli, to cancel the pattas granted in favour of respondent Nos.9 to 11. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli, issued proceedings, dated 20- 06-2008, wherein he has taken note of the fact that respondent Nos.9 to 11 have surrendered the D Form Pattas, pattadar pass books and title deeds and cancelled the same. Along with the additional affidavit, the petitioner filed the respective proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, and the Tahsildar, Cheepurupalli. Though Sri K.Rajanna, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.9 to 11, is not present in the Court, Sri A.Veeraswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that Sri K.Rajanna informed him that as he is not well, he is unable to attend the Court and that in view of the above-mentioned proceedings, which have taken place during the pendency of the Writ Petition, his clients are not opposing the prayer in the Writ Petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further stated that in pursuance of the above-mentioned proceedings, possession of the land in question was handed over to the petitioner and that the petitioner is in possession and occupation of the same by carrying on the mining activities. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, interim order, dated 26-10-2007, is vacated and WPMP.No.29364 of 2007 and WVMP.No.66 of 2008 are dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 15th June, 2010 lur