1 APHC010073472014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 16910/2014 Between: 1.B.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O. B.RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.14-7-2, CTMROAD, MADANPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION & CAD DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. 2.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3.THE TAHSILDAR MADANAPALLE MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, - 4.THE MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MADANAPALLE, CHITTOOR DIST ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.IMMANENI RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2. 3.MD SALEEM (SC MC RSEEMA SPSR NLR) 2 The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: None appeared for the Writ Petitioner. 2. Sri Gudapati Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.4 is present. 3. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in trying to demolish a part of premises belonging to the Petitioner bearing H.No.14-7-2, CTM Road, Madanapalle, Chittoor District without issuing any notice or initiating acquisition or requisition proceedings as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and is in negation of the establish Judicial Precedents besides in violation of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the same without following the due process of law, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. It transpires from record that there is no appearance on behalf of the Writ Petitioner on 21.07.2014 and 23.01.2026. Today also there is no appearance on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. 5. The Docket Orders of this Court would indicate that this Court has not granted any interim protection to the Writ Petitioner since the date of filing of this Writ Petition on 19.06.2014 till date. 6. Having so noted, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss this Writ Petition for non-prosecution. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for Non-prosecution. No order as to costs. 3 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:27.01.2026 Vns