THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9721 of 2010 09.06.2010 Between: C.Parasuram Pillai And others ….Petitioners AND The Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.9721 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioners allegedly have half share in the land admeasuring Acs.5.00 comprised in survey No.53/2 of Mangalam Village and some other lands. They allegedly dug a borewell in the land. They allege that third respondent herein had locked the door fixed to borewell on 25.06.2008. Due to intervention of elders, he removed the lock two days thereafter and again put a lock on 28.01.2010. Therefore, they filed instant writ petition. Though the cause of action and the grievance appears to be simple, the background of the case appears to be little complex. The affidavit of petitioners accompanying the writ petition throws up some difficulty in appreciating the factual background. This Court is reminded of Rule 5(a) and (b) of Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, which provide guidance for drafting of affidavits accompanying the writ petition. 5(a) Every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person and shall set forth succinctly and in chronological order all the relevant facts and the grounds for the relief sought. The statement of facts shall be divided into consecutively numbered paragraphs, each paragraph being confined as nearly as may be to a distinct portion of the subject. (b) The affidavit shall state- (i) the particular right conferred by the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India sought to be enforced; (ii) the other purpose for which relief is sought; (iii) the particular law impugned and how it is not constitutionally valid and whether it is a State Law, Central Law or State and Central Law; (iv) whether any alternative remedy for the relief sought is provided for by or under any other law for the time being in force and whether that remedy has been availed of and if so, with what result, by way of a separate paragraph; (v) whether the petitioner had or had not already filed a writ petition in the High Court or instituted any suit or other legal proceedings in any Court of Law or Tribunal either for the same or substantially the same relief on a previous occasion and he had done so, the particulars of the petition, suit or other proceedings and the result thereof shall also be mentioned in the affidavit, by way of a separate paragraph. This Court after reading and re-reading the writ affidavit is compelled to observe that guiding principles provided by Rules 5(a) and (b) of Writ Proceedings Rules are followed more in breach in the writ petition. But the Constitutional Court may not always throw away the writ petition which does not directly comply with Writ Proceedings Rules. It is vested with the power and duty to guard against encroachment of citizens’ fundamental rights by other wings of the State and enforce the rights recognized by the common law, statute law and/or Constitution of India subject to various other limitations that operate in exercise of powers of judicial review. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The first and second petitioners’ grandfather Kesava Pillai obtained a Swatantra Patta for subject land allegedly on 16.05.1944 from the landholder late Krishna Pillai. Kesava Pillai had two wives, namely, C.Mohanamma and C.Kanthamma. C.Raghu is son of Mohanamma and Papaiah Pillai, father of petitioners 1 and 2, is son of Kanthamma. Papaiah was allotted Acs.0.35 in survey No.55/3 and after his death, petitioners allegedly acquired half share each in the subject land. Their paternal uncle filed petition before the Settlement Officer under Section 11(a) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act), which was allotted on 25.01.1982. But on appeal before District Collector, the patta was set aside. In the meanwhile, Raghu sold the property to third respondent, who filed revision under Section 7 of the Act. The same was allowed against which W.P.No.27681 of 2005 was filed and is pending. It is alleged that petitioners herein were not aware of these proceedings. They also allege that third respondent and Raghu played fraud on them and, therefore, the sale deed by former in favour of third respondent is void. When the lands were sought to be acquired, petitioners filed W.P.No.2202 of 2008, which was disposed of giving liberty to petitioners to file objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is further case of petitioners that the third respondent obtained orders of status quo in W.P.M.P.No.402 of 2008 in W.P.No.384 of 2008 and the latter fixed the lock to the bore well. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. The counsel for petitioners made submissions with reference to the background especially relating to the proceedings before the Settlement Officer and other concerned officials. He does not dispute that the cause of action for filing writ petition is alleged action of third respondent in locking the bore well. Admittedly the writ petition filed against the order of Commissioner being W.P.No.27681 of 2005 is pending. Therefore, nothing prevents the petitioner to move the Court for vacating the orders of status quo if any still in force but filing separate writ petition is not proper. Further, if the third respondent locked the bore well of petitioners in survey No.53/2, their remedy is to approach Revenue officials for necessary redressal. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.06.2010 pln