APHC010361522019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 17200/2019 Between: 1. DOPPASANI MAMATHA, , W/O. RAJESH AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRI R/O. GUNDUGOLANU VILLAGE BHIMADOLU MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AT ELURU 3. THE TAHASILDAR, , T NARSAPURAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, CHINTALAPUDI WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in including the petitioner's property admeasuring Ac. 1.00 cents out of Ac.2.06 cents in Sy No. 37 of Kolivarigudem village, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari 2 VS,J W.P.No.17200 of 2019 District in prohibitory properties list ignoring the legal position as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and direct the respondents to delete the petitioner's property from prohibitory list and also direct tIllh Tahasildar to receive and process the application filed by th applicant for mutation and to issue pattadar passbooks in respect of her land admeasuring Ac. 1.00 cents out of Ac.2.06 cents in Sy No. 37 of Kolivarigudem village, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District in the interest of Justice Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GODAVARTHI VIJAYA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.17200 of 2019 ORDER: When the writ petition came up for hearing on 01.09.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, as such, the matter was posted to 08.09.2026. Even on 08.09.2026, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of counsel for the petitioner, hence, the matter was directed to be posted on 15.09.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in pursuing the matter. In view of the same, this writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 15.09.2026 Gss