IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9580 of 2001 Between: 1 Mr. M. Pullaiah S/o Krishnaiah Chetty R/o 6-1/64-N, Ramachandra Das Colony, Tirupati. 2 Mrs. M. Lakshmi W/o Pullaiah R/o 6-1/64-N, Ramachandra Das Colony, Tirupati. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) Tirupati Urban Development Authority (TUDA) Tirupati. 2 The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Tirupati. .....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 order more especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declarring the action of the respondents in acquiring the land situate at S.No.240/1A admeasuring 0.003/4 cents and is S.No.240/1 B admeasuring 0.003/4 cents vide Awrad No. 1/2001 dated 20-/4/2001 uder ﬁle No. 1076/A-1/97 without paying the market value of the land, as illegal, arbitrary and capricious and against the principles of natural justice and consequential direct th respondents to pay the agreed assessed compensation amount as assessed by the ﬁrst Respondent authority before taking delivery of the possession of the land under Award No.1/2001 dated 20-4-2001 under File No. 1076/A/1/97 for the land situated at Srinivasapuram, Tiruchanuru Road, Tirupati, under Survey No.240/1-A and 240/.1B and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAVI SHANKAR JANDHYALA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.BATHI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.9580 of 2001 O R D E R: Since none appeared for the petitioners on 04.11.2008, this writ petition was directed to be listed for dismissal today. Today, though the writ petition is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, neither is the counsel for the petitioners present nor is there any representation on their behalf. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. _________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 5th November, 2008. PNV