Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to the order of the learned Single Judge made in WP.No.15764 of 1993 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants herein seeking writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash the acquisition proceedings was dismissed. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition, counter affidavit along with the order under challenge were perused. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. The acquisition proceedings were challenged on different grounds, but the learned Single Judge after hearing both sides and looking into the materials have rejected all the grounds and dismissed the writ petition. As could be seen from the available materials, the contentions as raised by the petitioner was that the acquisition for the purpose of burial ground in the middle portion of the land in R.S.No.384/1 and objections were raised and they have also offered an alternative site at the corner in the very same locality. Since there was no reason or valid ground was noticed for interfering with the impugned acquisition proceedings, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the above appeal has been brought forth by the petitioners in the writ petition. 4. At the time when the matter was taken up for enquiry, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the entire proceedings have been dropped and in the instant, the North eastern corner in Survey No.384/6 was purchased for the said purpose by way of sale deed dated 23. 2008 from the appellants. The said statement of the learned Special Government Pleader is recorded. Learned counsel for the appellants would also agree that it is a correct statement of fact. 5. Under such circumstances, once the acquisition proceedings were challenged and admittedly it has been dropped and a part of a property in S.No.384/6 of the appellants has also been purchased by way of sale deed dated 23. 2008, this Court is of the considered opinion that no meaningful order could be passed in this appeal and hence the appeal can be disposed of recording of the above said statement. 6. Accordingly, the above appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also closed.