IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 1709 of 2007 Between: Balagam Ranga Rao, s/o Sri Chechaiah, r/o 78-4-9, Shyamala Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari at Kakinada. 2 The Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajanagaram, East Godavari District. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings bearing Ref.G3/1982/2006, dt.3-5- 2006 and also the consequential proceedings initiated by the respondents for acquisition of the petitioner's land of an extent of Ac.1.82 cents in Sy.No.181 of Radheyapalem Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and void and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard against the petitioner's land and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. P.SRI RAGHU RAM Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1709 OF 2007 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the notification dated 3.5.2006 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acquiring the land belonging to the petitioner to an extent of Ac.1.82 cents situated in Sy.No.181 of Radheyapalem Village, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District as arbitrary and illegal. This Court while directing rule nisi, by order dated 1.2.2007 granted stay of dispossession. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the land covered by the impugned notification is not required under ‘Indiramma Programme’ and therefore it is proposed to withdraw the said land including the petitioner’s land from acquisition. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the counter- affidavit, no further enquiry is necessary and accordingly recording the submission of the respondents that the land of the petitioners is proposed to be withdrawn from the acquisition, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 26.6.2008 gbs