IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4508 of 2002 Between: P. Ganesh Rao, S/o P.M. Guruswamy Naidu, R/o H.No.16-8-606, New Malakpet, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner for Land Revenue, Board of Revenue, Abids, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Hyderabad District., Collectorate Office, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 3 The Estate Officer, Revenue Department, Secunderabad Municipal Corporation Office. 4 T.K. Shailaja, D/o Kodandaram, W/o Chakrapani, R/o Maredpally, Secunderabad. Cause title of R4 in amended as per Court Order in WPMP 10990/02 dt.02-12-2002 5 T.K. Sridhar, S/o T.K. Kodandaram, R/o Maredpally, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.K.SWARNAKUMARI (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction with the following substantive relief:- “to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to cancel the pre- hold rights issued in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in respect of House No.10-2-90&91/A, Road No.3, West Marredpally, Secunderabad and to declare the conveyance deed executed by 3rd respondent in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as null and void and pass such other order or orders may deem ﬁt and proper.” 2. On 13.10.2008, when the case was called, no one appeared for the petitioner and, therefore, the writ petition was directed to be posted today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, at the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. 3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for default. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.5623 of 2002 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 14.10.2008 v v