IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 16997 of 2008 Between: Smt. Kondapalli Indira, W/o. Late Joga Rao, R/o. H.No. 4-86, Peruvancha Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Revenue Division Officer, Khammam, Khamamm District. 2 The Tahsildar, Kalluru Mandal, Khamamm District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the agricultural operations of the petitioner in her land admeasuring Ac. 7-26 gts in Sy.No. 36/AA/AA situated at Peruvancha Village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District, as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violative of Art. 300 (A) of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KOWTURU VINAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam and the Tahasidar, Kalluru mandal, Khammam District alone are arrayed as respondents. The writ petition is filed on an apprehension that the respondents would interfere with the agricultural operations of the petitioner in an extent of Ac. 7.26 gts in S.No. 36/AA/AA of Peruvancha village, Kallur mandal, Khammam District. In para-4 a vague assertion is made that “recently the officials of the 2nd respondent” have been visiting the site and insisting that the petitioner conduct any agricultural operations. The petitioner also made a representation to the District Collector dt. 16.7.2008 wherein there is a vague assertion that due to local political reasons, some third parties are trying to disturb the petitioner’s possession. The assertions in the writ petition are vague and lacking in any material particulars. The writ petition is also not directed against the State or an Instrumentality of the State. The writ petition is thus misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue appropriate remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction with appropriate and specific pleadings. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 1st June, 2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 16997 of 2008 Dated: 1.6.2009.