IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24253 of 2005 Between: 1 A.Vigneswara Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Hyderabad 2 A.Venkata Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Hyderabad 3 Sriram Jayasimha S/o. B.N.Jayasimha Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The government of AP., rep.by the Secretary, Revenue and Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, RangaReddy District at Hyderabad 3 The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Projects) Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy district 4 A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, Rep.by its Chairman, Hyderabad .....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 issue writ or direction particularly in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, declaring that the action of the respondents in acquiring the lands of the petitioners situated in Sy.No.127 of Gopannapally village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to an extent of Acre 1.15 guntas, 1.10 1/2 guntas and acre 2.00 held by the petitioners respectively pursuant the proceedings No.G1/6986/2004, dated 3.3.2005, of the 2nd respondent for the purpose of establishment of Information Technology Park and connected projects by the 4th respondent, is arbitrary, illegal and malafide and consequently direct the respondents to forbear from proceeding with the acquisition of thelands of the petitioners 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.V.R.AVULA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER : The learned counsel for the petitioners addressed a letter on 30.07.2009 to the registry informing that the petitioners herein are intend to withdraw the writ petition. 2. In view of the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, permission is accorded to withdraw the Writ Petition. 3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J July 31, 2009 KSH