IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.95 of 2008 Between: L. Bapu Rao @ J. Bapu Rao, S/o. Late Rajeshwar Rao, R/o. Padmajiwadi Village, Sadashivanagar Mandal, Presently residing at Anthampalli Village, Biknoor Mandal, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Department of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India, at New Delhi. 2 The District Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 3 The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 4 L. Bhoom Rao, S/o. Late Rajeshwar Rao, H.No. 2-45, Padmajiwadi Village, Sadashivanagar Mandal, Nizamabad 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 may be pleased to issue any order or direction, writ or writs, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 for not taking any action on my notice dt. 6-3-2007 and paying the compensation for the land acquired in Sy.No. 220/4 an extent of 0-09 guntas of Padmajiwadi Village, at Column No.13 of the Notification in Rc.No. A4/456/04, dt. 10-2-2006 and issuing the cheque in favour of the fourth respondent herein, is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and bias and against the principles of the natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri CH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : - None - The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.95 of 2008 ORDER: Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, addressed a letter dated 09.04.2008 to the Registry stating that the petitioner and the fourth respondent have settled the matter before the third respondent with regard to receipt of compensation and as such the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition. Therefore, he requested to post the writ petition under the caption ‘for withdrawal’ and accordingly, the matter is posted today under the caption ‘for withdrawal’. In the light of the statement in the letter dated 09.04.2008, and as the matter is amicably settled, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15.04.2008 Note: Furnish C.C. by 17.04.2008. (B/o) sh