WP/5232/1994 of RAJENDRA P.B.R.M. SURYAPET Vs SECY.APSEB.HYDERABAD on 22 August 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

WRIT PETITION NO : 5232 of 1995

Between:

Gummadaveli Ramulu S/o.Yadagiri R/o.Pilllamurthy (V) presently residing atSuryapet Nalgonda Dist.

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet Mandal Suryapet Nalgonda Dist 2 The Dist Collector Nalgonda.

3 The Managing Director A.P. Tourism Development Corporation Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

4 The Commissioner of Land Revenue A.P Nampally Hyderabad.

5 A.P.Bhoodan Yagna Board Rep. by its Chairman Gandhi Bhavan Hyderabad.

6 M/s. Spencers Hotels and Resorts Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director M/s.Naga Raju Panjagutta Hyderabad.

(R.6 was impleaded as per court order

dt 20/2/97 Wp.No.3801/97)

.... RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue patta in the name of thepetitioner herein as per the certificate of Respondent No.5 dt.31-5-1988, 0.20 Guntasvillage Pillalamarri of S.No.504 to the petitioner and record the same in the revenuerecords and quash the proceedings of Respondent No.1 dt.28-6-1993 and rejectingthe application of petitioner in Memo.dt.22-2-1995 in No.A/875/95 of RespondentNo.1 or any other proceedings relating to Survey.No.504,of Pillamarri village,Suryapet Mandal, Nalgonda District.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K.PATTABHIRAMARAO (not present)

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUECounsel for the Respondent No.6: Mr R.Dayanand Reddy The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Initially on 02-09-2004 when the case was called the learned counsel for thepetitioner absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Hence, the materwas directed to be posted for dismissal.

Even today, when the case is called the learned counsel for the petitioner absentand there is no representation on his behalf. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed fordefault. No costs.

______________________

(T.MEENA KUMARI,J)

9[th] September, 2004.

Kvrm/Tsy

To

1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Suryapet Mandal Suryapet Nalgonda Dist 2 The Dist Collector, Nalgonda.

3 The Managing Director A.P. Tourism Development Corporation Hyderabad.

4 The Commissioner of Land Revenue A.P Nampally Hyderabad.

5 The Chairman,

A.P.Bhoodan Yagna Board,

Gandhi Bhavan Hyderabad.

6 Two CCs for the GP for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (O.U.T.)

7 Two CD Copies.