IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 6022 of 2008 Between: 1 Mohammed Anwarullah S/o. Risal Ahmed R/o. H.No. 1-4-888/B, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Mohammed Sanaullah S/o. Mohd. Anwarullah R/o. H.No. 1-4-888/B, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 Mohammed Aftab S/o. Mohd. Anwarullah R/o. H.No. 1-4-888/B, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Mandal Revenue Officer, Uppal Mandal, 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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent and their men in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession of the property situated in Plot Nos. 65, 78 to 81 and 84, 85 to 87, 96 to 1000 in Sy.Nos. 31 to 35 of V.S. Nagar, Near Durga Nagar, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as being illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent and their men not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession of the property situated in Plot Nos. 65, 78 to 81 and 84, 85 to 87, 96 to 1000 in Sy. Nos. 31 to 35 of V.S.Nagar, Near Durga Nagar, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PANDU RANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.6022 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is filed on an apprehension that the respondent and his officials would interfere with the petitioners’ possession of property in Plot Nos.65,78 to 81, 84, 85 to 87, 96 to 100 in Sy.No.31 to 35 of V.S.Nagar, Near Durga Nagar, Nacharam Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners claim to be owners of the property and to be in possession thereof, having purchased the properties under the registered sale deeds in the year 2004. It is pleaded that the petitioners have obtained approved lay out in respect of property granted by the Gram Panchayat. When the vendors of the petitioners were interfering with the property, they filed the civil suit and claimed to have obtained an order of ad interim injunction. The petitioners allege that on 15-03-2008 the officials of the respondent come on to the property and started removing the fencing alleging that the property is government property. In the circumstances, the writ petition is filed. Neither the State nor an Instrumentality of the State is a party to this writ petition. The petitioners have merely impleaded the Mandal Revenue Officer of Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. If it is the petitioners’ grievance that the MRO or some officials of the Mandal Revenue Office is interfering with the petitioners’ property, the petitioners may as well move the civil court of competent jurisdiction and obtain injunctive relief thereat. If the petitioners are satisfied that there would be an immediate encroachment or trespass by the MRO or any other officials, the petitioners may move for an injunction and also seek dispensing with the notice to be issued under Sec.80 CPC. As the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy, more proximal to their habitat, before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, this court is not inclined to adjudicate the grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies before the civil court. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 30th JUNE 2009 *TSNR