IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5621 of 2004 Between : Smt.Kamalamma, W/o.Late Sri.B.Narayana Reddy, R/o.Laxmidevigudem Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Hyderabad-Zone, Office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Erramanjil, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nallagonda District, Nallagonda, A.P 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Bongir Sub- Division, Bhongir, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in taking steps to dig a canal through the agricultural lands of the Petitioner in Sy.Nos. 72 & 76 admeasuring Ac. 0.25 Guntas and Ac.2.18 Guntas respectively situated at Laxmidevigudem Village, (Old-Raghavapuram Village), Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District as bad, illegal, arbitrary and against the principals of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to dig the canal through the agricultural lands of the Petitioner in Sy.Nos. 72 & 76 admeasuring Ac.0.25 Guntas and Ac. 2.18 Guntas respectively situated at Laxmidevigudem Village, (Old Raghavapuram Village), Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District without acquiring the lands as per provision of the Land Acquisition Act. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.B.SHANKER Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER : When the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that a letter for withdrawal of the writ petition, was served in their office on 16.09.2004. As there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st July 2009 ajr