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 : 14504 of 2002 Between: 1 V. Jyothi W/o. V. Laxmaiah R/o. Kukkalapalle Village, Mandal Yadamarri, Chittoor District. 2 M. Kamalamma W/o. Late Venkataiah R/o. Kukkalapalle Village, Mandal Yadamarri, Chittoor District. 3 V. Laxmamma W/o Govinda Swamy R/o. Kukkalapalle Village, Mandal Yadamarri, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor Division, Chittoor District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Yadamarri Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.MOHD.GULAM RASOOL (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 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 declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the notiﬁcation under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and approved in proceedings ROC No.LASW/77/2002, dated 26.02.2002 for acquiring the lands of the petitioners in Sy.Nos.60/1A1, 60/1B1 and 60/1D1 situated at Kukkalapally village, Yadamarri Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the Notiﬁcation issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 26.02.2002 and the same is published on 10.04.2002 i n Eenadu Daily News Paper and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case” 2. On 13.10.2008, when the case was called, no one appeared for the petitioners 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 petitioners. 3. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for default. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.18136 of 2002 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J 14.10.2008 v v