IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 238 of 2002 BETWEEN: Thirumala Reddy Lurda Reddy, S/o Chinnappa Reddy, R/o Chinthalapalli Village, Sangam Mandal, Warangal District. ... PETITIONER AND 1.The District Collector, Warangal 2.The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Warangal 3.The Superintendent of Police, Warangal 4.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kazipet, Warangal District. 5.Boddala Ramanjaneyulu, S/o Ramulu, R/o H.No.1-1-678/1, Prasanth Nagar, Khazipet, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. (R5 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 30/07/2004 in WPMP 15008/2004) ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not initiating action against the land grabbers and ULC Officials in creating false exemption certificates in respect of the land in Sy.No.350 and 351 situated at Kazipet Jagir, Warangal and grabbing the land on the basis of false exemption certificates is highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and also direct the respondents to enquire into the land grabbing in respect of the land in Sy.No.350 and 351 situated at Kazipet Jagir, Warangal and false exemption certificates issued by ULC authorities, Warangal and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.DURGA NAGESWARA RAO GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ MR. M.V. RAJA RAM GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.04.2008, as neither the petitioner appeared nor there was any representation on his behalf the matter was adjourned to 10.04.2008. On 10.04.2008 also when the matter was taken up for hearing, as neither the petitioner appeared nor there was any representation on his behalf, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Thereafter, on 17.04.2008 the matter was adjourned to ten days. Today also, when the matter is taken up for hearing neither the petitioner appears nor there is any representation on his behalf. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J May 2, 2008 DSK