IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15551 of 2009 Between: M.Satyavathi and two others ..... PETITIONERS AND State of A.P. and three others .....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 a suitable writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed action of Respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the agricultural lands admeasuring Ac. 2.00 each situated at Survey No. 56/1P of Gotlam Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the constitution of India and direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over agricultural agricultural lands admeasuring Ac. 2.00 each situated at Survey No. 56/1P of Gotlam Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District Counsel for the Petitioners: vSMT.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.15551 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER Interference by the respondents, in particular the 4th respondent with the possession and ownership of the petitioners of an extent of Ac.2.00 in Sy.No.56/1p of Gotlam Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagarm District, is the allegation herein. The petitioners claim to be assignees of the property, having been issued D-Form pattas on 14-08-2006 under the order of the 4th respondent. They were earlier in occupation of the lands on the basis of purchase of these lands by their forefathers under an unregistered sale deed. The petitioners allege that the respondents 3 and 4 are trying to interfere with their possession. In respect of such alleged illegal and unauthorized interference by persons including holders of public office, the petitioners have a slew of effective alternative remedies. They may present a complaint of criminal trespass or any other cognizable offence to the jurisdictional police; they may exercise the right of private defence including against persons holding a public office; they may file a civil suit for injunctive or other appropriate relief before a civil court of competent jurisdiction and if apprehending imminent dispossession may seek dispensing with the notice under Section 80(2) CPC; even if they be dispossessed they may seek restoration of possession under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. As a number of efficacious alternative remedies are available within a proximity of the petitioners’ habitat in Vizianagarm, a distantly located district in the State, this court finds no justification for the petitioners to journey all the way to Hyderabad to file this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate, equally efficacious and alternative remedies, as advised. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 31st JULY, 2009. *TSNR