APHC010287312008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL Between: 1. Ega Pitchaiahgari Narsimhareddy Cultivation R/o.Upparapalli Village Dist. 1. Ega Yeddareddigari Cultivation R/o. Upparapalli Village Dist. (R1 DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT AS PER C.O. DATED 25 07) 2. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Unit Project, Nandyal and Land Kotapadu Village, Ontimitta Mandal Counsel for the Appellant: 1. M Mehdi Hussain 2. Mohd Hussain Counsel for the Respondents 1. --- 2. GP for Appeals. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL SUIT No.315 of 2008 Ega Pitchaiahgari Narsimhareddy, S/o.Konda Reddy, Upparapalli Village, Hamlet of Kotapadu, Cuddapah ...Appellant AND Ega Yeddareddigari Kondareddy, S/o.Subba Reddy, Upparapalli Village, Hamlet of Kotapadu, Cuddapah . (R1 DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT AS PER C.O. DATED 25 Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition Unit II, Telugu Nandyal and Land Acquisition Officer Somisila Project for Ontimitta Mandal, Cuddapah Dist. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondents: [3495] THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO , Hindu Cuddapah Appellant , Hindu Cuddapah . (R1 DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT AS PER C.O. DATED 25-7- Telugu GANGA Acquisition Officer Somisila Project for Respondents 2 LAAS_315_2008 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: (per NJS,J) The present appeal is preferred against the Award dated 17.10.1996 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rajampet in L.A.O.P. No.285 of 1987 seeking reference under Section 13(1) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. It appears that the appeal was dismissed for default against the respondent No.1 on 25.7.2007, but no steps have been taken so far. There is no representation on behalf of the appellant, though the matter is listed under the caption “For Dismissal”. It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ______________________ T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J February 13, 2025 vasu