IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13992 of 2009 Between: K.Jaganmohan Rao, S/o. Late Sri Rama Rao, R/o. Pamulapadu Village, Pedaparapudi Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretry- Revenue, Secretariat, Hydeabad. 2 The Tahsildar, Pedaparapudi Mandal, Krishna District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Proceedings Ref.B-275/2008, Dt.4- 11-2008 passed by the 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.13992 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER In proceedings dated 04-11-2008 (in response to the objection petition filed by the petitioner to acquisition of land in Sy.No.645 of Pamulapadu village, Pedaparupadi Mandal, Krishna District), the 2nd respondent stated that the land in question is a “Gramakantam”; adjacent to the village; suitable for provision of house sites to the poor and homeless villagers; and that as this Government land is available there would be no need for acquisition of private land. The petitioner claims ownership of a property in which there is a dwelling house bearing D.No.5/23 Assessment No.85 in Sy.No.645, which the 2nd respondent asserts is “gramakantham” land. In the circumstances the petitioner is challenging the response of the 2nd respondent dated 04-11-2008. In the facts and circumstances it is clear that there is a dispute as to the classification of the land and the claim of title thereto. While the petitioner claims ownership and possession of part of the land, bearing D.No.5/23, the 2nd respondent’s proceeding dated.04-11-2008 characterizes the entire extent of Ac.18.06 guntas in Sy.No.645 as “Grama- kantham”. This dispute as to title or competing claims to possession of land is not appropriately determined in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner be aggrieved by the declaration of the status of the land in Sy.No.645 of Pamulapadu village or is aggrieved or apprehends dispossession without following the due process of law by the respondents, the petitioner has a raft of available remedies before the civil court of competent jurisdiction either by seeking injunctive or declaratory relief as advised. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is however not the optional remedy. On the aforesaid analysis the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 14th JULY 2009 *TSNR