IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10400 of 2001 Between: 1 Mohd Ismail Sultan, S/o. Mohd. Hussain, R/o. Burgampad Village and Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Mohd. Iqbal Sultan, S/o. (Late) Zakria Sultan, R/o. Burgampad Village and Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Khammam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Burgampad, Khammam District. 4 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 5 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Burgampad, Khammam District. .....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 pass an order or direction or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the peitioners over the land measuring Ac.37.38 guntas in Sy.No.342 known as 'Chintala Cheruvu', situated at Burgampad Village and Mandal, treating the same as a public tank, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the land measuring Ac.37.38 guntas in Sy.No.342 known as 'Chintala Cheruvu' situated at Burgampad Village and Mandal, Khammam either by desilting the same are constructing any sluice in it and pass such other and further order or orders, as this Hon'ble Court Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 10400 OF 2001 ORDER: Since none appeared for the petitioners on 13.11.2008, the writ petition was directed to be posted “for dismissal”. 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. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as costs. ___________ 24-2-2009 asp