THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26634 of 2010 Dated 27th October, 2010 Between: Miriyala Parameshwari …Petitioner And The District Collector, Guntur and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. Ch. Vidya sagar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in considering the petitioner’s representation dated 13.09.2010 for taking action against respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner has pleaded that in the year 2006, a house site patta was granted to respondent No.4 and that as she failed to construct a house within the stipulated time, the same was cancelled and the petitioner was given patta in respect of the same plot in March, 2010. The petitioner filed a copy of the said patta along with the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of cancellation of the patta, respondent No.4 has been unduly interfering with her possession of the plot and trying to raise construction over it and that despite representations being made to respondent Nos.1 to 3, no action has been taken by them. In my opinion, this writ petition is wholly misconceived because the grievance is mainly against respondent No.4 to the effect that she is unduly interfering with the petitioner’s right to enjoy the plot covered by the patta granted by respondent No.3. Such being the case, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the public law remedy against respondent No.4. Having granted patta, the role of respondent Nos.1 to 3 comes to an end and it is for the petitioner to protect her right over the property in question. If respondent No.4is unduly interfering with such right of the petitioner, she can only avail a common law remedy by filing a civil suit before the competent civil Court. In the premise as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out her remedies available in common law. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34003 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th October, 2010 GHN