IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27076 of 2006 Between: 1 Smt. K. Rajeswari W/o K. Laxminarayana, R/o Flat No. 204, Chekuri Mansions, Seethamma Dhara, Visakhapatnam. 2 Smt. S. Venkata LAxmi W/o S.V.S.R. Prasad, R/o D. No. 4-68-5, Lawson's bay colony, visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Chief Urban Planner, Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam. .....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 an appropriate Writ, direction, or order, more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents and their officials in interfering with peaceful possession enjoyment of plots in S. No. 238/1 situated at narava Village with in Narava Panchayat area in Visakhapatnam is highly illegal unjustfied, with a direction Respondents and their officials not to interfering with peaceful possession enjoyment of plots the Plots in S. No. 238/1 situated at Narava vilalge with in Narava Panchayat area in Visakhapatnam and pass such other or further order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: None The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27076 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents and their officials in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plots in Sy.No.238/1 situated at Narava Village within Narava Panchayat area in Visakhapatnam, as illegal and unjust. There is no representation for the petitioners both in the forenoon and again in the afternoon. It is therefore reasonable to presume that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting their cause in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed in default. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition in default, WPMP.No.34803 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.02.2008 ES To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}