IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13027 of 2008 Between: 1 M.Yadaiah S/o.late Balaiah R/o.Kacharam, M.R.Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2 T.Srisailam S/o.late Balaiah R/o.Kacharam, M.R.Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. 3 T.Babaiah S/o.Pochaiah R/o.Kacharam, M.R.Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. 4 T.Jangaiah alias Attina Jangaiah S/o.Sayanna R/o.Kacharam, M.R.Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. 5 Attina Pochaiah S/o.Sayanna R/o.Kacharam, M.R.Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondentherein in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective portions of land of 0.27 gts. each in Sy.No. 143/A of Kacharam Village, M.R.Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and be pleased to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.V.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.13027 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed apprehending that the petitioners would be unlawfully and without following the due process of law deprive them of the ownership and possession of lands in Sy.No.143/A of Kacharam village, Shamshabadj Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. In para.8 of the writ petition it is very vaguely stated that the respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioners. The State is not impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition and merely the Tahasildar/MRO, Shamshabad is impleaded. Nothing is stated in the affidavit as to when the respondent took what overt action to dispossess the petitioners. In the circumstances no inference of any unlawful conduct by the respondent can legitimately be arrived at. The writ petition is dismissed for vagueness of pleadings as well as for failing to implead the State or an instrumentality of the State as respondents to the writ petition. The case does not call for adjudication in public law. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 1st JUNE 2009 TSNR