IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9997 of 2000 Between: 1 Mothukuri Narayudu, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. 59-- Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 M.Venkateshwarulu, S/o. Narayana R/o. 59-- Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 M.Veerabbai S/o. Narayana R/o. 59-- Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 M.Nookaraju S/o. Narayana R/o. 59-- Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Revenue Divisional Officer Ramachodavaram, East Godavari District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer Addateegala, East Godavari 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 Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the proposed action of the respondent herein in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their own patta land measuring Ac.2.35 cents in R.S.4/2 and Ac.5.01 cents in R.S.No. 9/1B situated at 59--Kothurupadu Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 19 (1) (g) 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and for a consequential order directing the respondents to drop all further proceedings including dispossession of the petitioners from the above mentioned schedule land and to pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.9997 OF 2000 ORDER: Since none appeared for the petitioners on 25.08.2008, the writ petition was directed to be posted “for dismissal”. Today though the writ petition is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, neither is the counsel for the petitioners present nor is there any representation on his behalf. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as costs. ____________ 26-08-2008 GS