IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAYF THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15550 of 2009 Between: Kallu Narayan S/o. LAte K.Narasaiah S.P.S.R.Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, S.P.S.R.Nellore District at Nellore. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. 3 The Tahasildar, Duttaluru village & Mandal, Nellore district. 4 Khambham Venkateswara Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy Dattaluru Village & Mandal, Nellore 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 issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent revenue authorities in not imitating action against the 4th respodnetn, who is trying to take over the government land assigned to the family of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.3.79 cents in Sy.No. 1660/1C situated at Dathaluru Village and Mandal, Nellore District, which is in occupation of petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent revenue authorities to initiate action against the 4th respondent from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said land, and Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.15550 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is fundamentally misconceived. The petitioner’s father, K.Narasaiah, is claimed to have been assigned Ac.3.79 cents of agricultural land in Sy.No.1660/1C of Dathaluru Village and Mandal, Nellore District in 1929. After the father’s death, the petitioner and his brother, asserts the petitioner, have succeeded to the estate and are continuing cultivation of the land. The 4th respondent a former Village Munsiff of Dathaluru is allegedly trying to encroach on the petitioner’s land. In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks a direction to the official respondents 1 to 3 to take action to prevent the 4th respondent from encroaching into the petitioner’s land. This is the framework of the writ petition. The statement of facts itself recommends rejection of the writ petition as no public law injury is discernable. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. The petitioner is at liberty to pursue private law remedies as advised. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 31st JULY, 2009. *TSNR