IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 6839 of 1999 Between: 1) G.Srinivasulu S/o Ramanaidu, Krishnapuram, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittor District. 2) M.Desaiah S/o Venkatswami Reddy @ Muruga Reddy, Krishnapuram post, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittor District. … PETITIONERS A N D 1) State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Revenue, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad 2) The District Collector, Chittor, Chittor District 3) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagalapuram PO and Mandal, Chittor District. 4) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagalapuram PO and Mandal, Chittor 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 notice, call for records and declare that the said B.Cs have right to continue to cultivate the said land for their livelihood and the action of the State Government in allotting the said lands to the displaced persons is illegal, ultra virus and unconstitutional and is liable to be corrected and the State Government be directed to cancel the pattas issued to the said displaced persons covering the lands of B.Cs in Krishnapuram in Survey No.27/1 etc, covering an extent of 12.99 acres is null and void and the respondents be directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands of the said B.Cs and to direct to the respondents to issue pattas to the respective B.Cs by implementing the compromise formula arrived at or otherwise by issuance of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction as the Hon’ ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and grant such other relief or reliefs in the circumstances of the case and grant such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners are entitled to and to allow the writ petition with costs. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.NAGESWAR SREE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: When the matter came up before this Court on 22.07.2004, this Court passed the following order: This is an old matter coming up in the weekly list for today i.e. 22.07.2004. Though the list was circulated to the learned Counsel well in advance, none appears. The learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. Post on 23.07.2004 under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Though the matter is coming up under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, on 23.07.2004, none appears. The learned counsel for the petitioners is absent and there is no representation. Again today i.e.27.07.2004, though the matter is coming up under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, learned counsel for the petitioners is absent and there is no representation. The Writ Petition, therefore, is dismissed for default/non prosecution. ___________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) To 1) The Secretary, Revenue, Government of Andhra Pradesh, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad 2) The District Collector, Chittor, Chittor District 3) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nagalapuram PO and Mandal, Chittor District. 4) The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nagalapuram PO&Mandalm,Chittor 4) 2 CCs to G.P for Revenue, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad(OUT) 5) 2 CD copies 27.07.2004. pln