Nuthi Vijaya Rani v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh

\ [ 33031 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction).

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAYOF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETtTtoN NO: 3321 OF 2009 Between:

Nuthi Vijaya Rani' W/o. Late Venkata Rao, aged 55 years, Cultivation, Rl/o. GattaigJdem, Palvoncha, Khammam District.

...PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Sub Collector, Polvoncha' AND Khammam District.

2. The Tahsildar, Polvoncha Mandal, Polvoncha Khammam District' 3.Smt.B.Ramanujamma,Wo.LateRamaiah,-agedS5years'Household,Fl/o' Rahul Gandhi Ndgar, Polvoncha' Khammam District. The order dt 25to412o13 has not been complied with Hence, given effect and WP stands dismissed as against R3 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the issuance of notice Rc No. Bt21gt2OO8 dt. 15-12-2008 from the file of the 1st respondent and after perusing the same, quash the said notice dt. 15-12-2008 by declaring it as arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of A.P.

Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 and with all other consequential benefits. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009 (WPMP.

Roc No. Bl219l2OOB dt 15-12-2008 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.JAGAPATHI (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

i HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE J. SR"EENryAS RAO Writ Petition No. 3321 of 2OO9 ORDER:

When the matter was taken up for consideration on 22.01.2024, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. To give one opportunity the matter was posted to 05.O2.2024 under the caption 'For Dismissal'. 2.

Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, inspite of listing under the caption "For Dismissal". [t appears that the petitioner is not having any interest in prosecuting the matter.

3.

After perusal of the record it reveals that the Writ Petition was already dismissed against the contesting respondent No.3, for non-compliance of the conditional order dated 25.O4.2013.

4.

[n view of the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

Pending miscellaneor.rs petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/-N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT R GISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER To, One CC to SRI V.JAGAPATHI' Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] I Two CD CoPies

I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0710212024 1H[ rI4f -)3 18 ilAR zuf c

ORDER

SPATcH(.P t * 0€ WP.No.3321 ot 2009 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON-PROSECUTION, WITHOUT COSTS @qd *-