IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 19918 of 2000 Between: 1 Smt. Kummari Narsavva @ S.Narsavva W/o. Mallaih R/o.Chandrasekar Colony Chowrastha, Nizamabab. 2 Mohs. Azeemuddin S/o. Pasha Miya R/o.Chandrasekar Colony Chowrastha, Nizamabab. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Nizamabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Nizamabad. .....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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the illegal action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioners from the plots without any notice or due process of law inspite of decress dated 12.12.1996 passed by the Prl.Dist.Musiff.Nizamabad in O.S.No.104 and 105 of 1993 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and alos violative of Art. 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and issue consequential directions to the respondents (a) not to dispossess the petitioners from the plot area of 15' x 18' each situate on D-54 canal at Chandrashekar colony Chowrastha, Nizamabad (b) to issue pattas to the petitioners of said plots forthwith alternatively the respondents may be directed to receive the market price of the said plots as on the date of auuuming the possessions by the petitioners or as directed by the Hon'ble Court for issuing pattas to them. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRK.M.MAHENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.19918 OF 2000 ORDER: Since none appeared for the petitioners on 13.11.2008, the writ petition was directed to be posted “for dismissal”. Today though the writ petition is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, neither is the counsel for the petitioners present nor is there any representation on their behalf. The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as costs. _____________ 14-11-2008 asp