THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P.M.P. No. 35014 of 2008 and W.P. No. 10534 of 2008 and W.M.P. No. 1913 of 2010 and W.P. No. 19565 of 2008 Common order: The petitioners in W.P. No. 10534 of 2008 have questioned the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 51, dated 21.01.2008, allotting the land in question to the unofficial respondents therein, contending that the said land was earlier allotted to them vide G.O. Ms. No. 1931, dated 18.11.2005 and that without canelling the said G.O., the impugned G.O. was issued. The official respondents filed counter in the matter. On 21.10.2008 when the matter was taken up, it was brought to the notice of this Court that one other person questioning the very same G.O. Ms. No. 51, dated 21.01.2008 filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 19565 of 2008 contending that she has purchased the land in question from the original owner and that while her application for regularization of the land in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 455, dated 29.07.2002 is pending in File No. F1/455/02/2004, the Government issued the impugned G.O. Therefore, both the writ petitions were directed to be posted together. While the matters stood thus, the petitioners in W.P. No. 10534 of 2008 filed petition in W.P.M.P. No. 35014 of 2008 praying to permit them to withdraw the writ petition. On 16.12.2008, the said W.P.M.P. came up for hearing. In the affidavit filed in support of the W.P.M.P., it is stated by the petitioners that upon perusal of the counter filed by the official respondents, they as well as the unofficial respondents are satisfied that the dispute between them is solved and that the petitioners and unofficial respondents entered into a Memorandum of Compromise on 27.11.2008. That in view of the said compromise, the petitioners prayed that they may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition. Since the unofficial respondent in both the writ petitions are one and the same, the counsel or the petitioner in W.P. No. 19565 of 2008 opposed the withdrawal of W.P. No. 10534 of 2008 by the petitioners stating that if based on the averments made in the counter filed therein and the compromise entered into by the petitioners and unofficial respondents, the withdrawal of the writ petition is allowed, then it would amount to upholding the counter averments and validating an illegal G.O. issued by the Government, which is subject matter of dispute in W.P. No. 19565 of 2008 also, and in which case, the interest of his client would be adversely affected. In view of the opposition expressed by the counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 19565 of 2008, the counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 10534 o 2008 sought time to get instructions for withdrawal of the writ petition unconditionally without reference to the Memorandum of Compromise. As the matters stand, the petitioner in W.P. No. 19565 of 2008 filed W.P.M.P. No. 1919 of 2010 praying to permit her to withdraw the writ petition stating that the unofficial respondents came forward to purchase her rights, which were conferred in their favour vide G.O. Ms. No. 51, dated 21.01.2008, and they reached a settlement with them out of Court, and in view of the settlement reached she wants to withdraw the writ petition as not pressed. The counsel for the unofficial respondents, who filed vakalat, expressed no objection to the withdrawal of the writ petitions by the respective petitioners. In view of the above, the W.P.M.Ps. are allowed. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 19th February, 2010 KSR