IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2482 of 2003 Between: B. L. Shankerlal Yadav S/o. Late B.G. Lakshman, R/o 292, Lal Bazar, Trimulghary, Secunderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hyderabad Urban Land Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Police Lines, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. 2 Kapra Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Balraj S/o. K. Anjaiah R/o. Valluvaru Nagar, Miyapur, Ammuguda, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 4 K. Narayana S/o. late K. Anjaiah R/o. Valluvaru Nagar, Miyapur, Ammuguda, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 5 K. Shankaraiah S/o. late K. "Anjaiah R/o. Valluvaru Nagar, Miyapur, Ammuguda, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriste writ declaring that the action of the 1st respodnent in sanctioning layout submitted by Respondnets 3 to 5 in respect ofland in Sy. Nos. 5,6,7, 10/1, 11/1, 12/1, 12/42 and 13/1 totally admeasuring 13 acres, without considering the objections ofthe petitioner and as there is an dispute of title over the said land, is arbitary and illegal and direct the respondnets 1 and 2 to forbaear from granting any construction permission or giving effect to the layout said to have been released by the 1st respondnet to the 2nd respondnet municipality onthe application of the respondents 3 to 5 and grant such other relief as it deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. For the Petitioner No. Counsel for the Respondent No.: M.DHANANJAY REDDY (SC FOR HUDA) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2482 of 2003 ORDER: When the matter came up for hearing on 25-10-2007, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter the Writ Petition was listed on two occasions and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for adjournment on both the occasions. Even on this day also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this matter. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 12th June, 2009 PN HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2482 of 2003 12th June, 2009