IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11211 of 2010 BETWEEN Mr. P. Narsing Rao and two others. ... PETITIONERS AND The Competent Authority (LAO), NH Act, Ranga Reddy District and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: MR. S.S. VARMA The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for first respondent. 2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking relief for exclusion of the staircase to the school building owned by the first petitioner from the proposed acquisition in pursuance of 3A notification issued under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. 3. While issuing notice before admission on 12.05.2010, this Court had directed the respondents to consider the representation of the first petitioner dated 27.04.2010. The said representation has since been disposed of, copy whereof is produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with WPMP.No.25435 of 2010. The operative portion of the order passed by the competent authority dated 04.06.2010, in pursuance of interim direction of this Court, reads as under: “However considering the record of acquisition and in the light of the sketch prepared and enclosed to this proceeding as per the alignment finalized, the apprehension of the petitioner is baseless and untenable. It is reiterated that compensation for the land acquired will be determined and will be paid to the 1st petitioner, Mr. P. Narsing Rao, who claims to be owner of the land after considering the documents. Accordingly the representation dated 27-4-2010 is disposed off.” Along with the said order, a sketch of the portion of affected is also enclosed. 4. In view of the specific assurance of the Competent Authority, the apprehension of the petitioner does not survive. Learned counsel for the petitioners also accepts the said assurance and in view of that nothing survives for considering in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 3, 2011 DSK