IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19382 of 2008 Between: 1 Y.L.Siva Kumar s/o. Y.Suryanarayana Rao R/o. 8-4-376/13, New Sastry Nagar, Hyderabad - 500 018 2 Balusu Narendra S/o. V.Ramachandra Rao R/o. Plot No. 1599, Road No. 10, Jubliee Hills, Hyderabad. 3 B.Sudha Rani W/o. B.L.Swamy R/o. 8-4-376/14, New Sastry Nagar, Hyderabad. 4 B.Nageswar Rao S/o. B.Pullaiah R/o. F-3, Srinivas Apartments, Shirdi Sai Nagar, Vijaiyanagaram. 5 Yarlagadda Ranga Rao S/o. Seshaiah r/o. D.no. 8-12-72, Balajinagar, Vijayanagaram. 6 B.Janardhana Rao S/o. Bhaskar Rao R/o. 8-6-25/2, Balajinagar, Vijayanagaram. 7 K. Sudha W/o. Kilaru Samba Siva Rao R/o. 8-14-24/A, Balajinagar, Vijayanagaram. 8 Y.Geetha W/o. Y.Srikanth Lankalapalem Village, Parwada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 9 Dr. Y.Babu Rao S/o. Seshaiah R/o. D.No. 1-8-26, Contoment, Vijayanagaram. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Chairman, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT 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 any appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the respondent demanding land conversion charges through its proceedings No. Rc.No. 4727/04/PLG/L3 dated 28.8.2008 when the lands is already converted into residential zone through G.O.Ms.No. 345 dated 30-6-2006 as illegal, arbitrary, malafidy, unmindful and consequently set aside the same as illegal, and pass all necessary orders for the said purpose. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MRS.V.PREETI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19382 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after ﬁling the writ petition the respondent made a demand for development charges and therefore the petitioners intend to ﬁle comprehensive writ petition questioning the demand of development charges as well as conversion charges and therefore, seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. 2. Permission as sought for is accorded. 3. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn reserving the liberty to the petitioners to ﬁle comprehensive writ petition assailing the demand of the respondent in respect of computation of development charges as well as conversion charges. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 23rd October, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 19382 OF 2008 23rd October, 2008.