IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11382 of 2009 Between: B.Nagamonemma W/o.Narayanappa Door No.3-1023 Puttaparthy(V)&(M) Anantapur District ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahasildar Puttaparthy(M) Puttaparthi,Anantapur District .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering into the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and in resorting to demolish her house bearing D.No.3-1023 situated in Sy No.276/2 of Puttaparthui(V) and Mandal Anantapur District as illegal arbitrary,violation of Article 300-A of the constitution of India and against the principles of Natural justice and cossequently direct the respondent not to demolish the petitioner's house and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI.R.SUJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.11382 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of Ac.0.13 cents of land in Sy.No.276/2 of Puttaparthi village and Mandal, Ananthapur District, whereat she claims to have constructed a residence with Asbestos sheets after obtaining due permission from the Puttaparthi Gram Panchayat. The petitioner also asserts to have been allotted Door No.3-1023 by the Gram Panchayat; that she is assessed to tax for the said property and that she is paying the property tax regularly. While so, the petitioner alleges, on account of political malice the respondent has deputed persons to her house on 1.6.2009 alleging that she has constructed the house in government land and should vacate the same. It is asserted that no formal proceedings or any notice was issued, but the respondent and his men are physically threatening the petitioner with dispossession. The respondent is a Tahsildar, Puttaparthy Mandal, a State actor but not per se the State or an Instrumentality of the State. Against any illegal or coercive conduct of a person in public office including the Tahsildar the petitioner may well file a suit for injunctive or any other appropriate relief before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction even without having to issue notice under section 80 C.P.C. which need be issued only when relief is sought against the Government. The petitioner can seek emergent relief if so desired before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in a substantive application for an injunctive relief. On the afore said analysis, in the context of an available alternative and efficacious remedy to the petitioner which proximal to her habitat, this court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but relegates the petitioner to pursue the appropriate alternative remedies. The Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy. No Costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 11TH JUNE 2009 IVD/TSNR