IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 9248 of 1996 Between: Osmania University, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Registrar, Prof. M.V.Sounder Rajan ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabd. 2. Masjid Bagh Himmat Ali Khan, Behind Arts College, near Dairth-ul-Maariff, Hyderabad, Rep. By its President and Treasurer, Mohd. Mohamood Ahmed 3. Hafez Mohd. Altaf Hussain s/o not known to the petitioner, Occ: Vice President, Masjid Bagh Himmat Ali Khan, Behind Arts College, near Dairth-ul-Maariff, Hyderabad- 7 4. Syed Hameedussin s/o not known to the petitioner, Occ: Secretary, Masjid Bagh Himmat Ali Khan, Behind Arts College, near Dairth-ul-Maariff, Hyderabad- 7 .....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 one in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to call for, peruse and quash the judgment and decree of the 1st respondent herein in LGC No.18/1993 in so far as it holds that the land in the occupation of the mosque is 1256.11 Sq. Yards and in so far as it holds that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein cannot be regarded as land grabbers within the meaning of Section 2(d) and 2(e) of the Act with a consequential direction directing the 1st respondent to adjudicate afresh on these aspects and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.WASEEM AHMED The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) On 4.3.2008, when the writ petition was called, none appeared for the petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition was posted for dismissal on today. Even today also, when the case is called, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not present nor there is any representation. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 5, 2008 MAS.