THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13079 of 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to set aside the order of resumption dated 19.04.2011, holding that the petitioner had grabbed Ac.0.11 guntas of land in Sy.No.123 of Tandur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary. In the impugned order dated 19.04.2011, it is recorded that the land in Sy.No.123 was shown as ‘Poramboke Sarkari’ upto 1960-61; in the year 1961-62, it was recorded as ‘Poramboke Sarkari Patta’ in the name of Sri Krishna Ananth Ram Deshmukh as the pattadar; there were no entries, with regards any orders from the authorities concerned for incorporation of his name in the records; subsequently his legal representatives succeeded to the land; and, at present, the petitioner had purchased an extent of land in Sy.No.123 and had sought that his name be recorded as the pattadar. Contending that the land is not government land, and the impugned order is illegal, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. A counter affidavit is now filed by the Tahsildar, Tandur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (third respondent), wherein it is admitted that the impugned proceedings dated 19.04.2011 was passed without mentioning the provision of law, and had withdrawn both the notice dated 23.12.2010, (calling upon the petitioner to produce documentary evidence of ownership), as well as resumption proceedings dated 19.04.2011. Along with the counter affidavit, a copy of the proceedings dated 05.09.2011 is filed whereby the third respondent has withdrawn both the notice dated 23.12.2010 as well as resumption proceedings dated 19.04.2011. Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would seek imposition of costs on the respondents for having driven the petitioner to the Court, and would rely on a judgment of the Supreme Court, in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India[1], in this regard. Whether costs should be imposed, and the extent thereof, are matters within the discretion of this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the respondent has realized his mistake, and has withdrawn the orders impugned in this Writ Petition on his own accord, I see no reason to mulct him with costs. Suffice to hold that, since the impugned proceedings have been withdrawn, the position existing prior thereto will continue to remain in force unless and until the respondents take fresh action in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:08.09.2011 usd [1] AIR 2005 SC 3353