IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 28541 of 2008 Between: Polavarapu Burada Appa Rao S/o. Guruvulu Residing at Polireddypalem village Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam 2 The Tahsildar, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 3 The District Collector ,Visakhapatnam District 4 Kothurthi Varahalamma W/o.Sanyasaiah, Residing at Vennelapalem village Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam 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 order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents without conducting the proper enquiry and trying to take the peaceful possession of the petitioner herein is illegal, arbitrary, and against the law and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAJA GOPALA RAO HANUMANTHU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WP NO. 28541 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: Neither the State nor an Instrumentality of the State is impleaded in this writ petition. Merely the R.D.O., Visakhapatnam, Tahsildar, Parawada and the District Collector, Visakhapatnam are impleaded as respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner apprehends that the respondents would dispossess him from agricultural land Ac.4.98 cts, in Sy.No. 153/1 of Swayambhuvaram (V), Parawada (M). In Para-4 it is alleged that the respondents 1 and 2 on 22.12.2008 visited the land and threatened the petitioner that the Government is going to take over the land. The petitioner states that no formal proceedings whatsoever either for acquisition, for removal of encroachment or eviction were ever initiated and the respondents 1 and 2 merely exercising physical force are threatening and coercing the petitioner in abuse and under the colour of the public office they hold. In respect of such an allegation against a person holding public office whether it be the of RDO or a Tahsildar, the petitioner has a remedy of filing a private complaint under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.; he can also file a complaint before the jurisdictional police alleging criminal trespass if such a cognizable or any other offence cognizable under the provisions of the IPC is made out; the petitioner can also seek injunctive or other appropriate relief before a competent Civil Court and in emergency, he may also invoke the right of private defence. In the context of the availability of such plural and alternative remedies very nearer to the residence of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. With a liberty to seek appropriate remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 04.06.2009 pvsn ------------------------------- Justice G. Raghuram ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}