Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: K. Jyothi Prasad
For the Respondents: GP For Revenue

Withdrawal of a writ petition under Article 226 is permissible, affirming the petitioners' right to discontinue legal action without further judicial orders.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Writ Petition - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners alleged illegal attempts by respondents to take possession of assigned agricultural lands without consent and against principles of natural justice - Petitioner's withdrawal from the Writ Petition was allowed. (Para 1)

(B) Natural Justice - Violation - The action of respondents treating petitioners as encroachers was challenged on grounds of constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A. (Para 1)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to declare the actions of respondents in seizing assigned agricultural lands as illegal and unconstitutional, asserting entitlement to developed plots according to government eligibility criteria.

Findings of Court:
The Writ Petition was dismissed as withdrawn at the petitioners' request, with no orders as to costs.

Issues: The main issue was the legality of the respondents' actions regarding the petitioners' assigned agricultural lands.

Ratio Decidendi: The decision of the court permitted the withdrawal of the petition, indicating the petitioners' choice not to pursue their complaint further.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Order :

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.

Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the Writ Petition.

2. Permission, as sought for, is accorded.

3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs.

4. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.