IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 5430 of 2005 Between: Kolli Ramachandra Rao, s/o Tatayya, r/o Chalapalli, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Appellate Authority under the AP Tenancy-Act-cum- District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 Tiruvuri Ananthalakshmi Satyavathi, w/o Venkata Neelachalam, r/o Challapalli, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 4 Tiruvuri Naga Surya Venkata Narasimha Rao, s/o Venkata Neelachalam, r/o Challapalli, Amalapuram, East Godavari 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" call for the records of the proceedings ATC 39 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, dt.05-09-1998 and set aside the same and also the appellate order in ATA No.105 of 1998 on the file of the Appellate Authority under the AP Tenancy Act-cum-District Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, dt.29-10-2004 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.RAJA MANOHAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS} THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 5430 OF 2005 ORAL ORDER: There being no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 15.4.2008 the writ petition was directed to be posted ‘for dismissal’ on 22.4.2008. It has however appeared now under the caption ‘for dismissal’ today. When the matter is taken up there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore dismissed for default. No order as to costs. Dt: 16.06.2008 --------------------------- Pvsn Justice G. Raghuram