IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No: 17909 of 2001 Between: 1 S.Yadagiri, S/o Ramaswamy, R/o Gaddiannaram Revenue Board Colony, Hyderabad. 2 N.Venkatesh, S/o Durgaiah, R/o Gaddiannaram Revenue Board Colony, Hyderabad. 3 G.Laxmaiah, S/o Sailoo, R/o Gaddiannaram Revenue Board Colony, Hyderabad. 4 S.Yellaiah, S/o Pochaiah, R/o Gaddiannaram Revenue Board Colony, Hyderabad. 5 N.Yellaiah, S/o Laxmaiah, R/o Gaddiannaram Revenue Board Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad. 3 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Special Officer, Tankbund, Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad. 5 K.Anjaneyulu, Plot NO.144, Road NO. 71, Jubilee Hills,Hyderabad. R5 is added with the permission of Hon'ble Court. .....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 a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to acquire the slum land as per the provisions of the slum Improvement and Acquiristion of land Act and declare the action of the 4rth respondent in trying to evice the petitioner from plot No.34, Sy.No.313, of Gaddiannaram Village, Charminar Mandal, Hyderabad as arbitrary and illegal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Since none appeared for the petitioners on 14-11-2008 the writ petition was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even today also, neither the counsel for petitioners is present nor there is any representation on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 15th November 2008 CVRK