IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9719 of 2008 Between: Sk. Jahangir S/o Chand Sab, r/o Jalunigudem, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by its District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district. 3 TheTahsildar, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda district. 4 The A.P. Bhoodan yagan Board rep by its Secretary, A.P. Hyderabad. 5 The Tahsidar, nalgonda mandal, Nalgonda District. 6 Nandyala Sidulu S/o Ramulu r/o Shaligouraram, Nalgonda District. 7 Nandyala Narsaiah S/o Ramulu, R/o Shaligouraram, Nalgonda District. 8 Nandyala Srinu S/o Ramulu, R/o Shaligouraram, nalgonda 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 issue order or direction more particularly Writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to act upon forthwith on the letter No. 282/2008, dt 12-2-2008 on the file of the 3rd respondent in order to give effect to the proceedings No. 206/76, dt 6-3-1976 on the file of the 4th respondent and proceedings No. B1/1718/76, dt 26-3-1976 on the file of the 5th respondent by declarign the action of the 2nd respondent in not taking action on the letter No. 282/2008, dt 12-2-2008 on the file of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Bhoodan and Gramdan Act 1965 and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 9719 of 2008 22-04-2009 Oral Order: There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter of the year 2008 is called for admission. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for ‘default’. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 22-04-2009 Pvks