IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 368 of 2000 Between: Sri.Kuna Narayana, S/o. K.Ramaiah. R/o. 1-92, Qutbullahpur, Ranga Reddy District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Village, Ranga Reddy District 2 The Assitant Director Survey and Land Records Ranga Reddy District 3 The Superintendent of Police Ranga Reddy District 4 The Station House Officer, Jeedimetla Police Station, Ranga Reddy District 5 Sri Maddela Krishna, S/o. Sri M.Anjaiah, R/o. 5-37, Qutbullahpur, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit the petitioner herein prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate WRIT OR DIRECTION declaring the action of the respondent No.1 and 2 in conducting survey vide proceedings No.G7/2462/99 dt 22.10.1999 in sy.no.44, situated at Qutbullahpur Village, R.R.District without following the due process of law and CONSEQUENTLY allowing the respondent no.5 to plot the land in sy.no. 44 for the purpose of selling with the aid & help of the respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Art.14&21 of Constitution of india and provisions of Revenue Laws and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the said circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.M.VENKATESWARI (not present) Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.5: SRI K.RAJI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.368 of 2000 ORDER: There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was listed for hearing on 15.09.2008, 16.09.2008, 26.09.2008, 20.10.2008 and 04.11.2008. In view of the continued lack of representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed for dismissal on 10.11.2008. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It is clear that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR,J 10.11.2008 v v