APHC010496322015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31344/2015 Between: Smt. Pattam Munemma, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION) 2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP) The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not abiding by G.O.Ms.No.425, dated 24.04.1992 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the constitution of India and set-aside the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by 3rd respondent in Appeal Nos.10/2010, 11/2010, 12/2010, 13/2010, 14/2010 confirming proceedings of 2 the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.B1/3545/2010 and consequently direct them to abide by the said G.O. and further not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment over land admeasuring acre 6.50 cts in Sy.Nos.261/1B(Ac.1.37(wet), 262/2(Ac.1.84 cts dry)) and 314/3A2(Ac.3.29 cts dry) situated in erstwhile chandragiri taluka, present Tirupati urban Mandal, Chittoor district…….” 2. This Court, vide order, dated 31.12.2024, has passed the following docket order: “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have sent notices to the petitioners and three of the notices were returned as deceased and awaiting for remaining two notices and seeks time. For hearing, post on 07.01.2025, finally.” 3. Heard Mr.Md.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for M/s.Indus Law Firm appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although they have sent notices to the petitioners, there has been no response regarding the legal heirs of the deceased petitioners. Therefore, they are unable to obtain instructions from the concerned Legal Representatives. 5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that, the petitioners are not interested to prosecute the case. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. 3 7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J BMS