IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11371 of 2009 Between: 1 N. Venkata Ranga Chary S/o. Narasimha Chary R/o. H.No. 3-9-35/A, Honest Arcade, 403, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. 2 M. Partha Sarathy S/o. Appa Rao R/o. Plot No. 7, Jupiter Colony, Kakaguda, Marredpally, Secunderabad. 3 M. Harry S/o. Thomas R/o. Flat No.102, H.No. 3-9-35/A, Hones Arcade, 403, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. 4 Tom Candy S/o. C.C. Candy R/o. H.No. 11-2-473/4, Namalgundu, Secunderabad. 5 Khaja Moinuddin S/o. Khaja Zahiruddin R/o. H.No. 11-2-473/4, Namalgundu, Secunderabad. 6 Abdul Wahab S/o. Abdul Razaq H.No. 11-2-473/4, Namalgundu, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P. Rep. by Revenue Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector Medak District. 3 The Tahsildar Patancheru Mandal Medak District, Andhra Pradesh. .....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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to effectuate the names of the petitioners in the Revenue Records in respect of Sy.Nos.750, 18, 886/2, admeasuring Ac.36-10 gts. situated at Lakkadaharam Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, Andhra Pradesh and consequently direct the respondent to mutate the name of writ petitioner as claimed in the application dated 30-01-2008 as the respondent No.3 cited the said reason which is not tenable in the eye of law. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.SAI KRISHNA MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners on 16.7.2009, the writ petition was directed to be listed under the caption of dismissal today. The writ petition is so listed today. Again there is no representation for the petitioners when the matter is called for admission hearing. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for default. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 21.7.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 11371 of 2009. Dated: 21.7.2009.