IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21260 of 2004 Between: Sri D. Yadaiah Goud … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri G. Rama Krishna for Sri Srinivasa Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21260 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings of respondent No.1 in case No.D5/1644/02 dated 26.10.2004. Heard Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Rama Krishna representing Sri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The petitioner is the father of respondent No.3. A dispute arose between them in respect of an extent of Ac.1.00 of land in Sy.No.464 of Dammaihguda, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. An order passed in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 171 (for short, ‘the Act’) was questioned by respondent No.3 before respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Act. The said petition filed by respondent No.3 was allowed by respondent No.1 by impugned order dated 26.10.2004. This order is questioned by the petitioner in this writ petition. Evidently, subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner and respondent No.3 reconciled leading to respondent No.3 filing WPMP.No. 7756 of 2006 with a request to allow the writ petition as he is not intending to press his claim. In his affidavit filed in support of the said application it is mentioned that after filing of the writ petition, with the intervention of the elders, the petitioner and respondent No.3 entered into a compromise and settled all the issues pending between them. At the hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that such an affidavit and application have, in fact, been filed by respondent No.3 and that, however, subsequently he has not received any instructions. In view of the fact that respondent No.3 admitted that the matter has been settled between them and prayed for allowing the writ petition, the writ petition is allowed and order dated 26.10.2004 passed by respondent No.1 is set aside. Consequently, order dated 21.03.2002 passed by respondent No.2 stands revived. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.Nos.27853 of 2004 and 7756 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 09.06.2008 ES