IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8185 of 2000 Between: Sirajuddin Daruwala, S/o.L.R.Daruwala, Muslim, 45 years, Cultivation, R/o.Door No.23-36-1/3, Soldierpet, Visakhapatnam-1. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2. The Sarpanch (Vuda Venkat Rao), Daivada Village, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 3. Kaki Appanna, S/o.late Appanna, Hindu, 60 years, Palavalasa, Daivada Post, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 4. Kaki Satya Rao, S/o.late Appanna,Hindu, 55 years, R/o.Palavalasa, Daivada Post, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam 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 issue any Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the attempted action of the respondents dated 30.04.2000 in forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from his land in an extent of nine hectares situated in survey No.233 of Devada Village, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, violative of principles of natural justice under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to dispossess him from the said land except under due process of law i.e. under the Land Acquisition Act or under Land Encroachment Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8185 of 2000 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring nine hectares in Survey No.233 of Devada Village, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit shows that the petitioner claimed his right to be in possession and enjoyment of the above mentioned land on the basis of the lease granted in his favour on 18.03.2000 in an auction, which was confirmed on 13.03.2000 for a period of one year. Since the said period for which he was granted lease expired in the year 2001, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for consideration. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. _______________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 10th July 2008 RRB