IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14100 of 2008 Between: 1 Chejerla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Chejarla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 Chejerla Bairamma, W/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Chejarla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 Chejerla Bramaramba W/o. Suryanarayana, R/o. Chejarla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Prakasam District, 2 The Revenue Divisiona Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Beerakayala Peda Subba Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, R/o. Karavadi,East harijanawada, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. 5 Goreemutchu Ramaiah, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah, R/o. Karavadi,East harijanawada, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the “official respondents” in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their lands admeasuring Acs.2.52 cents, Ac.1.34 cents and Ac.1.44 cents in Survey Nos.209/2, 336/2, 336/7 and 336/5 situated at Chejerla Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri S.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners alleged that they were issued D-Form pattas on 18.09.2004 and following the same, they were issued pattadar passbooks and title deeds. From the time of granting pattas, they were in possession of their respective properties and raising crops and that respondent Nos.4 and 5 without any manner of right or authority and basing their claim on false and fabricated documents, filed O.S.Nos.794 and 821 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ongole against the petitioners and that both the said suits are pending. The petitioners alleged that having failed to get an order of injunction, respondent Nos.4 and 5 exerted political pressure on “official respondents” and that the said official respondents are causing interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the lands by the petitioners. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is bereft of material particulars. The petitioners termed respondent Nos.1 to 3 as “official respondents”. They have not specified as to which of the three respondents that are interfering with the petitioners’ possession and threatening to dispossess them. At the hearing, Sri S.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is only respondent No.3, who is interfering with the petitioners’ possession. Except making an assertion in their affidavit, they have not filed any material in support of the said assertion that the “official respondents” are interfering and seeking to dispossess them. The petitioners have not called upon the “official respondents” to desist from indulging in the said alleged acts. The law is well settled that before seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioners shall issue a notice demanding justice from the respondents. (See Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v. State of West Bengal[1] and Amrit Lal Berry, K.N.Kapur v. Collector of Central Excise Central Revenue[2]). Admittedly, the petitioners have not given any notice to respondent Nos.1 to 3 before filing this writ petition. Hence, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the mere ipsi dixit of the petitioners without any supporting material that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are interfering with their possession. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.18191 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd JULY, 2008. kvni [1] AIR 1972 SC 2060 [2] AIR 1975 SC 538