IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12581 of 2002 Between: 1. Ghan Syam Dasji S/o.Ramaeshwar Dayalji, 77 years, 2. Ravindra Kumar S/o.Ghan Syam Dasji, aged 44 years; 3. Arvind Kumar S/o.Ghan Syam Dasji, aged 40 years; 4. Mahesh Kumar S/o.Ghan Syam Dasji, aged 54 years, 5. Bhajaranglal S/o.Ghan Syam Dasji, aged 51 years; 6. Satish Kumar S/o.Ghan Syam Dasji, aged 35 years; All are R/oi.H.No.21-7-319, Mithkasher, Charkaman, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Executive Officer, Secunderabad Contonment Board, Secunderabad; 2. The Defence Estates Officer, A.p. Circle, Secunderabad; 3. The Contonment Board, Secunderabad Contonment, Secunderabad; 4. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government Of India, New Delhi. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent-2 Defence Estate Officer in treating the petitioners owned building bearing old House No.72 correspondent to H.No.1- 14-166, situated at Balamrai, Secunderabad within the municipal limits of the Secunderabad contonment as B-3 land held ob Old Grant terms by virtue of an entry stated to have been made in the General Land Register and raising objection for according sanction for re-errection of the said building in the said premises by the petitioners in accordance with the plans submitted by them and the consequential action of the 1st respondent and the respondent-3 Contonment Board in refusing to accord permission contrary to the provisions of the Contonment Act and the rules made thereunder as illegal, void, arbitrary, opposed to principles of natural justice and without any authority or power and consequentially the petitioners prayed for a direction directing the respondents to refrain from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property in question while permitting them to proceed with the construction by according necessary permission to erect the building in accordance with the plans which are returned by the 1st respondent and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SUDHIR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASEKHAR REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R : When this writ petition came up for hearing on 12.06.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and therefore, it was directed to be listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’. On 03.07.2009 a representation was made that the 1st petitioner died and steps are required to be taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner. As on this day, no steps have been taken to being on record the legal representatives of the deceased 1st petitioner. Even there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. It indicates that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th July, 2009. cs ..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}