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.9932 of 2005 Between: 1 Sri K.B. Madhava Rao S/o.Sri K.V. Gopal Rao C/o.Durga Bhavani Hotel Karl Marx Road Vijayawada. 2 Sri K.V.Gopal Rao S/o. Late Sri K. Narayana Rao C/o.MamataHotel Karl Marx Road Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Govt., of A.P rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Municipal Admn., & Urban Develop -Department Secretariat 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of 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 Article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently 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 order or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.PRATAP Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.9932 of 2005 ORDER: Petitioners seek 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 petitioners 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 petitioners have agreed to withdraw all the cases filed against the respondent Corporation and also addressed a letter on 29-11-2006 expressing their 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 petitioners 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 them on 29-11-2006, it is always open for the petitioners 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{CHP}