IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 17656 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Polamarusetty Lakshmi D/o. Late Suryanarayana 2 Smt. Maddala Surya Kumari D/o. Late Suryanarayana 3 Smt. Malla Durgi Ramani @ Durgi D/o. Late Suryanarayana All are the Legal heirs of Late Smt. Kandregula Durggalamma Residents of D.No. 19-590, Anakapally, Visakhapatnam District. .....PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Special Deputy Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam 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 an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 4th respondents, Special Deputy Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam in Innam Case AIP No. 1488/2005 dated 19-05-2006 in so far as the claiom of Late Smt. Kandregula Durgalamma is concerned in respect of the lands in an extent of Ac. 2-00 in Survey no. 306/1 (P) situated at Kaniti - village, Gajuwaka- Mandal, Visakhapatnam District through her father Late Smt. Kandregula Durgalamma sa being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the 4th Respondent to reconsider the case of Late Smt. Kandregula Durgalamma in respect of the lands in an extent of Ac.2-00 in Survey No. 306/1 (P) Situated at Kaniti - Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.SAMSON BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on 24.4.2009, the writ petition was directed to be listed under the caption of dismissal today. Though the matter is listed today for dismissal, when the matter is taken for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 17656 of 2008 Dated: 1.5.2009.