IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:10001 of 2002 Between: 1 J.Radha Krishnan, S/o. Jagannadha Reddy, R/o. Ramagiri Village, Krishnapuram Post, Pitchatur Mandal, Chittoor District. 2 M.Narasimhulu Naidu, S/o. Maraiah, R/o. Ramagiri Village, Krishnapuram Post, Pitchatur Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 P.Rosaiah, S/o. Munaswamy, R/o. Ramagiri Village, Krishnapuram Post, Pitchatur Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 2 Sri Valeswara Swamy Temple, Rep. Executive Officer, Ramagiri, Pichatur Mandal, Chittoor District. 3 The Regional Commissioner of Endowments, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 4 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Chittoor, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:NONE APPEARED The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the above accompanying aﬃdavit, the petitioners herein pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in proposing to conduct tender-cum-public auction of the agricultural lands belonging to the 2nd respondent Temple i.e., Sri Valeeswara Swamy Temple and Sri Subrahmanya Swamy Temples, Ramagiri Village, Pitchatur Mandal, Chittoor District, in pursuance of the publication made in Eenadu Telugu Daily (Chittoor Edition) dated 13/05/2002, scheduled to be held on 05/06/2002, which the petitioners herein are possessing as cultivating tenants, without taking into consideration their pre-emptive right contemplated under Section 82 Sub-sections 1 and 2 Act 30/87, to purchase the agricultural lands as per the mode laid down there under as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents herein to sell the same to the petitioners herein as contemplated under law.” On 15.10.2008, when the case was called, no one appeared for the petitioners. Therefore, it was adjourned for today with the direction to post the same under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today, at the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting their case. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th OCTOBER, 2008. kvni