IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 8225 of 2009 Between: 1 Thogunta Venkata Krishnaiah (Hindu) S/o. Rama Chandraiah R/o. Vavintaparthi Village & Post, Podalakooru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2 Thogunta Jayamma (Hindu) W/o. Venkata Krishnaiah R/o. Vavintaparthi Village & Post, Podalakooru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Dist. Collector SPSR Nellore District, at Nellore. 2 The Tahsildar Podalakooru Mandal SPSR Nellore District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer Gudur SPSR Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 one in the nature of writ of mandamus: declare the action on the part of the 2nd respondent in seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in S.No. 11/1 for an extent of Ac. 5.06 cents situated at Vavintaparthi Village, Podalakoor Mandal, SPSR Nellore Dist. that too without issuing any prior notice and without following due process of law amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14, 21, 300 (A) of Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the said lands. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.C.KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 8225 of 2009 09-06-2009 Oral Order: The substantive grievance of the petitioners is as to the wholly illegal and unauthorized conduct of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in seeking to dispossess the petitioners of their long encroachment including from the time of the 1st petitioner’s late father – T. Ramachandraiah on an extent of Ac.05-06 cents in survey No. 11/1 of Vavintaparthi village, Podalakoor Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. The petitioners claim that T. Ramachandraiah was issued a pattedar passbook and title deed in respect of the above lands. While so, according to the petitioners some third parties in the village are out to dispossess the petitioners. In the circumstances, the wife of T. Ramachandraiah is stated to have filed O.S.No. 69 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudur for injunctive relief. What happened to that suit, the petitioners do not state. The next quantum leap in the statement of facts is that the 2nd respondent visited the lands on 30-03-2009 and without initiation of any formal proceedings under any known law, has threatened the petitioners with dispossession. The petitioners are thus before this Court. Though the petitioners have impleaded the State of Andrha Pradesh represented by the District Collector as 1st respondent, the substantive allegation in the writ petition is as to the illegal conduct of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the Tahasildar, Podalakooru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District respectively. If the 2nd respondent is out to dispossess the petitioners without any due process of law, the petitioners have a plurality of remedies. One among such is before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction by impleading the 2nd respondent as a defendant, in which event the petitioners need not even issue a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the CPC), as the 2nd respondent is neither the Union of India nor the State. If the petitioners’ grievance is unlawful conduct of the 2nd respondent, who is a temporal holder of a public office, the petitioners need not issue a notice under Section 80 of the CPC. As the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction, considerations of availability of an alternative remedy and the needs of litigative efficiency pursuade this Court to decline exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue alternative remedies. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 09-06-2009 Pvks Nb:- Furnish c.c. day after tomorrow. B/o pvks/*