IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7506 of 2007 Between: Dhanekula Tirumala Prasad … Petitioner And The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Durga Prasad Counsel for the respondents: GP for Land Acquisition This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7506 of 2007 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the notification published in Andhra Jyothi Daily dated 05.01.2007 issued by the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 2nd respondent herein under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the declaration in R.C.G4/2718/2006, dated 26.03.2007 published in Praja Sakthi Daily on 01.04.2007 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act by the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, 2nd respondent herein and the proceedings in Roc.G4/2817/2006, dated 12.03.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent herein for acquisition of the land, admeasuring Ac.1.31 cents situated in R.S.No.127/1 of Davuluru Village, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District belonging to the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, null and void and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purpose) Act, 2006 and contrary to the Circular Memo No.10054/L.A.I/2005, dated 22.04.2006 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.” When this case came up for hearing on 29.06.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the respondents have allotted alternative land for providing house sites to all the beneficiaries covered by the impugned notification. The learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition has taken adjournment for reporting to the Court on this aspect. Today, the learned Government Pleader, on written instructions, stated that all the beneficiaries covered by the impugned notification were provided with alternative land and that the land under the impugned notification is no longer needed for the purpose for which it is proposed to be acquired. Having regard to the above submission of the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are restrained from acquiring the petitioners’ land. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.9610 of 2007 and 22396 of 2011 and WVMP.No.2455 of 2007 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 04.07.2011 ES