IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27001 OF 2001 Between: Jonnalagadda Ranga Rao S/o. Ramaiah, Resident of Addanki, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Prakasam, Prakasam District. 2 The Mandall Revenue Officer, Kotespadu Mandal, PrakasamDistrict. 3 The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 Raveri Sundara Basu, S/o. Nagabhushanam, Pichikala Gudipadu, Korisepadu Mandal, Prakasam District. R-4 is impleaded as per court order dt.4/12/03 in WPMP 31885/2003. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents making the lease hold lands into house-sites for the weaker section without following the procedure as per law, the lands belonging to Sri Seetharamswamy Temple, Koresepadu to an extent of 19 acres in Sy.Nos.137/1 and137/2 situated at P.Gudipadu, Korespadu Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to allot the said lands for the prupose of house-sited to the weaker sections and pass Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI Y. SUBBHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No. : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: On 24-04-2009, as there was no representation on either side, the matter was adjourned to 27-04-2009. On 27-04-2009, for non-representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 29-04-2009. Again on 29-04-2009, there was no representation on either side and the matter was directed to be listed after summer vacation. Today also, when it came up for hearing after summer vacation for the first time, there is no representation on either side. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 17, 2009. PV