HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Appeal No. 2588 of 2005 Between: K. Madhava Rao and others …Appellants. And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Hyderabad represented by Principal Secretary and others. … Respondents. :: ORDER:: Counsel for the appellants : Sri K.G. Kannabhiran, senior counsel for Sri B. Nalinkumar. Counsel for the respondent No.1: G.P. for Municipal Adminis- Tration & Urban Development. Counsel for respondent No.2 : G.P. for Land Acquisition. Counsel for respondent No.3 : MR. B. Viswanatha Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr. Rama Rao Ghanta January 02, 2006 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ. This appeal is directed against order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 20863 of 2005 filed by the appellants questioning notification dated 23.8.2005 issued by Collector, Ranga Reddy District under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). In the pre-lunch session we had, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, adjourned the case to enable the learned Special Government Pleader to seek some instructions. In the post-lunch session, learned Special Government Pleader placed before the Court a statement showing the approximate cost of the project. After going through the statement supplied by the learned Special Government Pleader, Sri Kannabiran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, on instructions submitted that his clients may be permitted to withdraw this appeal as also Writ Petition No. 20863 of 2005 with liberty to raise all objections before the competent authority in the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act. Learned Special Government Pleader says that he does not have any objection if the request of the learned counsel for the appellants is accepted. In view of the above, we deem it proper to accept the request of the learned senior counsel and dismiss the appeal as also Writ Petition No. 20863 of 2005 with liberty to the appellants to raise all legally permissible objections including those taken in the writ petition before the competent authority entrusted with the enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act. We also make it clear that the findings recorded and observations made by the learned Single Judge on the merits of the appellants’ challenge to notification dated 23.8.2005 shall, in no manner, prejudice the consideration of the objections to be raised by the appellants and the concerned authority shall independently decide the same. Since the matter has remained pending before the Court, we allow two weeks’ time from today to the appellants to file their objections before the competent authority. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J January 02, 2006. MVB.