IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 2772 of 2002 Between: 1. Pedda Beechupally, S/o.Karre Beechupally, R/o.Mattampally Village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 2. Chinna Beechupally, S/o.Karre Beechupally, R/o.Mattampally Village, Atmakur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Atmakur, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Superindent Engineer, Priyadarshini Jurala Project (PJP), Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanapet, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar District. 5 Boya Bhamanna, S/o.Thimmappa, R/o.Arapally (V), Atmakur(M), Mahaboobnagar District. R5 is impleaded as per Court Order in W.P.M.P.No.16186/02, dt:23.8.2002. .....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 declare the action of the respondents in illegally laying the Feeder channel connecting to the distributor channel of the Krishna River, though the lands of the petitioners without following the due procedure of law and without any sanction of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and opposed to all caonons of law and consequently direct the respondents not to proceed fruther of laying the feeder channel except in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.POTTIGARI SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he had oral instructions from his clients to withdraw the writ petition and he also submits that there are no written instructions from them. Thereafter, he requests the Court that the matter may be taken up after Summer vacation, 2009. Having regard to the above, the request of the learned counsel for taking up the matter after Summer vacation, 2009 is rejected and as he submits that he had oral instructions from his clients to withdraw the writ petition, the same is considered and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 24-04-2009 LSK