IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14045 of 2009 Between: Gundloooru Shankaraiah S/o. Narsimhulu R/o. Singanamala, Penagalur mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kadapa District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penugalur, Kadapa District. 3 The Tahsildar, Penagalur Mandal, Kadapa District. 4 Yerri Narsimhulu S/o. Narsaiah R/o. Singanamala, Penagalur Mandal, Kadapa 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 issue any order or orders writ or writs or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 3rd respondent in threatening to seize the bore well with the Electricity Service No. 15 in Sy.No. 216 of Singanamala Village of Singareddipalle Revenue Village, Penagalur Mandal, Kadapa District without issuing any notice or passing any orders under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land & Trees Act 2002 or anya other law is illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction in the interest of justice and equity and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MRCH.JANARDHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.14045 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The singular grievance in this writ petition is that without following the due process of law or passing any formal orders, the 2nd respondent is regularly coming to the petitioner’s agricultural lands in Sy.No.216 of Singareddipalli village, Penaglur Mandal, Kadapa District and threatening to seize the bore well of the petitioner installed in the said land and to seize the electric motor fixed thereto. In respect of such a grievance, the petitioner has a plurality of remedies. He may exercise the right of private defence including against the 2nd respondent or any other officials who are trying to trespass criminally on the petitioner’s property without the authority of law and under the mere pretence and colour of official position. He may file a complaint to the jurisdictional police or to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He may also seek injunctive or other appropriate relief before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and in case of apprehension of imminent threat of dispossession or other civil injury may seek dispensing with the process of notice under Section 80 CPC. In the context of a raft alternative effective remedies available closer to the petitioner’s habitat, this court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission with liberty preserved in the petitioner to pursue appropriate and effective alternative remedies. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 15th JULY 2009 Note: Issue CC as Soon as possible (B/O) *TSNR