IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SUNDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 26589 of 2005 Between: 1 Pyarasani Rajanikath S/o. P. Balaraj R/o. H.No. 12-13-316, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, Rep. by their General Power of Attorney & Father Sri P. Balaraj S/o. Lingamaiah, age 52, Occ: BUsiness, R/o.H.No. 12-13-316,Tarnaka, Sec'bad. 2 Pyarasani Srikanth S/o. P. Balaraj R/o. H.No. 12-13-316, Tarnaka, Secunderabad, Rep. by their General Power of Attorney & Father Sri P. Balaraj S/o. Lingamaiah, age 52, Occ: BUsiness, R/o.H.No. 12-13-316,Tarnaka, Sec'bad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, 2 Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, R.R. District, 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District, 4 Kandadi Srinivas Reddy S/o. Achaiah R/o. Thimmaipally Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District, 5 K. Rangaiah @ Ranga ReddyS/o. late Kandadi Balaiah Major, R/o. Thimmaipally Village, Keesara Mandal, R.R. District, 6 Talla Narasimha S/o. Late Mallaiah R/o. Dharmaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 7 Talla Kishtaiah S/o. Late Mallaiah R/o. Dharmaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 8 Talla Ramulu S/o. Late Chittaiah R/o. Dharmaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 9 Talla Bala Narasimha S/o. Late Chittaiah R/o. Dharmaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, 10 Talla Pentamma W/o. Late Chittaiah R/o. Dharmaram Village, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing proceedings in Case No. D5/1163/93, dt. 15-12-2001 as illegal, in violation of principles of Natural justice, contrary to Sec. 9 of A.P. Record of Rights Act 1971 and without jurisdiction and consequentially set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R: The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a letter, dated 31.3.2009 to the effect that the petitioners do not want to pursue the writ petition since a compromise was recorded in O.S. No. 1631 of 2005 on 30.10.2008 in the Lok Adalat. In view of the above letter, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. 1st April, 2009 bcj