IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the Seventh day of March TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT: THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5559 of 1997 Between: Mir Jallaluddin Ali Khan S/o Late Zahuruddin, R/o 8-2-332/1/C, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of AP, represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept., Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Hyderabad. 3 The Joint Collector, Hyderabad. 4 Special Deputy Collector, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 5 Revenue Divisional Officer, Hyderabad. 6 Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad. 7 H.U.D.A. rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the respondents actions as illegal by holding that the father of the petitioner Zahuruddin and ultimately the Petitioner herein is the owner of the said land bearing Sy. No. 129/85, measuring 15 acres Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Shaikpet Village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad district basing on the title and acquisition of the said property from the Sarfekhas estate of H.E.H. the Nizam by directing the respondents 2 and 6 to mutate the name of the petitioner in all the revenue records and 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.G.Dhananjai Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.T.Niranjan Reddy GP for Revenue Mr. M.Dhananjay Reddy (SC for HUDA) Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy (for HUDA) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5559 OF 1997 ORAL ORDER: It is represented by Sri G. Dhananjai, learned counsel for the petitioner, that he has no instructions to proceed with the matter and that in spite of addressing a registered letter, there is no response from the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. No costs. 7.03.2007. Kgr