IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25991 of 2007 Between: 1 Devarakonda Venkata Ramana, S/o.Devarakonda Subrahmanya Janardhanam, R/o.Annampalli(V),Mummidivaram(M), Amalapuram Sub- Division,E.G Dist 2 Devarakonda Gopalakrishna, S/o.Devarakonda Subrahmanya Janardhanam, R/o.Annampalli(V),Mummidivaram(M), Amalapuram Sub- Division,E.G Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer,Amalapuram,E.G Dist 2 The Manadal RevenuE Officer and Mummidivaram(M),E.G Dist .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.SUBRAHMANYAM KURELLA Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “I pray that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in contemplating to acquire the land of the petitioners to an extent of 2 acres 87 cents in R.S.No.54/1 of Annampalli Village, Mummidivaram Mandal, Amalapuram Sub-Division, East Godavari District under reference No.43/4018/2007, dated 03.07.2007 as arbitrary, capricious, illegal, irregular and opposed to principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the said notification dated 03.07.2007 and all other incidental proceedings in the interest of justice.” At the hearing, Sri Subrahmanyam Kurella, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of this writ petition, the respondents passed order rejecting the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and questioning the said order, the petitioners filed a separate writ petition. In view of this subsequent event, this writ petition has become infructuous and therefore, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the subsequent writ petition and it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall be without prejudice to the contentions raised by the petitioners in the said writ petition. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as infructuous, WPMP.No.33907 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni