IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8801 of 1995 Between: 1 C Veera Raju S/o Kameshwara Rao R/o H.No. 155, Vasavi Nagar, Kharkana, Secunderabad 2 P Divakar Rao S/o P Venkat Rao H. No. 155, Vasavi Nagar, Kharkana, Secunderabad 3 C Shashibhushan S/o Kameswara Rao R/o Shantideep Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad 4 Smt. Manisha Rao W/o E.S.D. Rao R/o Shantideep Colony, Kakaguda, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 T Bhaskara Rao (Died) per L.Rs. 2 T Ravindranath S/o T Bhaskara Rao Palamavelu, Chittoor District 3 T Seshagiri Rao S/o T Bhaskara Rao Thaper Water Base Limited, Nellore District. 4 T Shyamala W/o T Bhaskara Rao R/o 16/1681, Ramamurthy Nagar, Nellore District. 5 V.T.V. Ranga Chari, S/o Ramanuja Chary Rep by its GPA Holder M. Sebastian, S/o M. David, 28 yrs. R/o Block No. 1, Flat No.4, Ground Floor, Badam Apartments, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 6 Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act., Hyderabad 7 Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad-cum-Special Tribunal under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad .....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 issue a Writ of Certiorari; calling for the records in L.G.A. No. 7/94, dated 4/11/1994, on the file of the Special court under A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Hyderabad, reversing the judgment and decree in O.P. No. 155/1987, dated 15/10/1993, on the file of the Special Tribunal cum Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.E.MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that in spite of efforts made by him he could not serve notices on respondents 2 to 5. Respondents 2 to 5 are the main contesting respondents and as notices are not served, the writ petition stands dismissed against respondents 2 to 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 20.7.2009 kpr