IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15287 of 2009 Between: G.Ramakrishnamma W/o Late G.Ramanna Sanjeevapuram,Garladinna(M) Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar Garladinne(V)&(M) Anantapur District 2 The Mandal Revenue Inspector Mandal Revenue Office Garladinne(M) Anantapur 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decalring the impugned action of the respondents in threatening to close the bore well existing in the land situated in Sy No.115 of Sanjeevapuram(V) Garladinna(M) Anantapur District without following the due process of law as being illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner including usage of the borewell existing in the above said land and to grant such other Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NASARAIAH GOLLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.15287 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed on an apprehension and seeks a direction to the respondents not to threaten to close the bore well dug by the petitioner in his land in an extent of Ac.2.16 cents in Sy.No.115 of Sanjeevapuram Village, Garladinna Mandal, Anantapur District. In para 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner pleads that “the respondents are illegally and highhandedly causing their interference and threatening to close down the borewell existing in my land. Due to the frequent visits made by the respondents I am unable to do the cultivation as a result of which the existing orange garden is effecting and if the respondent are not prevented from their illegal activities, manifest injustice will be caused to me and I will suffer serious loss and hardship, which cannot be compensated at a later stage”. No specific date on which the respondents are alleged to have visited the petitioner’s land and obstructed his lawful activity is pleaded. In the circumstances, the petitioner is seen to be vaguely complaining of unauthorized conduct and illegal or even criminal trespass by the respondents. If that be so, the petitioner has a slew of remedies. He may lodge information to the jurisdictional police or complain to the jurisdictional Magistrate about any cognizable office or attempt to commit an offence by the respondents; he may exercise the right of private defence to protect his property and to prevent unlawful physical interference of his right to property; or he may approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for injunctive relief and in case an imminent threat, he may seek dispensing with the notice under Section 80(2) CPC. As the petitioner has a raft of alternative and efficacious remedies more proximal to his habitat in Anantapur District, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate his grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 29th JULY, 2009. *TSNR