IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10891 of 2004 Between: APSRTC rep by Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Kanthilal H. Sha S/o Hemachand Sha Jain Caste, H. No. 40/323, Ballary Road, Kurnool 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition Officer) Kurnool, Kurnool District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt W.V.S.Rajeswari Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri K.Sita Ram Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : O R D E R: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal having regard to the averments contained in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.1. Heard Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Sita Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.1. This writ petition is filed questioning order dated 13-06-2002 in E.P.No.199 of 2000 in O.P.No.139 of 1979 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, whereby the said E.P. was allowed and the civil Court held that the decree holder (respondent No.1) is entitled for the amount claimed in the Execution Petition. On 28- 06-2004, this Court granted interim stay of the said order. Respondent No.1 filed counter-affidavit along with the vacate stay application. In paragraph 2, he submitted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner-Corporation filed E.A.No.568 of 2005 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking its impleadment in E.P.No.199 of 2000 and that the said application was allowed on 09-09-2005. He also stated that the petitioner-Corporation filed a calculation memo along with the said application and that though the said calculation memo is not accurate and the respondent is entitled to more than the amount mentioned in the said memo, he decided to accept the said memo. He averred that in view of subsistence of stay granted by this Court, the Executing Court is unable to take up execution proceedings and close the same. Having regard to the categorical averments contained in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.1, as noted above, the petitioner should not have any grievance, because the amount which is payable to respondent No.1 according to the petitioner is being accepted by respondent No.1 as the full and final settlement towards the compensation payable to him. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. As a sequel to disposal of main petition as infructuous, interim order dated 28-06-2004 is vacated. WPMP No.13836 of 2004 and WVMP No.1098 of 2008 are also disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 24th June, 2008 vrn