IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9977 of 2005 Between: Sri. K.V. Gopal Rao, S/o. Late Sri. K. Narayaa Rao, C/o. Mamata Hotel, Karl Marx road, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, Vijayawada, Krishna District, REp. by its Vice-Chairman. 3 The Vijayawada Municipal Commissioner, Rep. by its Commissioner, Vijayawada. Krishna 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 will be pleased to issue an order, writ, or direction more in the nature of a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not giving the compensation for the land acquired on par with similarly situated persons as per the provisions of the land acquisition act thus violating the provisions of Article 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India, and consequentially direct the respondents to pay compensation for the land acquired by the respondents on par with similarly situated persons in the interests of justice, and pass such other and further orders this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, as otherwise the Petitioner herein would be put to great loss and irreparable loss and damage. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.PRATAP Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9977 of 2005 ORDER: Petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not giving compensation for the land acquired on par with the similarly situated persons as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as illegal and arbitrary. A counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation has been settled by entering into an agreement on 29-11-2006, and as per Clause 5 of the said agreement, the petitioner has agreed to withdraw all the cases filed against the respondent Corporation and also addressed a letter on 29-11-2006 expressing his readiness for the same. In view of the aforesaid agreement, I am of the opinion that nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner’s dispute is not settled as alleged by the 3rd respondent, pursuant to the so- called agreement and the letter said to have been addressed by him on 29- 11-2006, it is always open for the petitioner to file fresh writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 26-03-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}