IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10832 of 2009 Between: Gouru Venkata Subba Rededy S/o. Late G. Lakshma Reddy R/o. 204, Rama Sadan, Gangaram Chandanagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar 2 The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Shadnabgar, Mahabubnagar, A.P. Central Power Distribution Corporation Ltd., 3 The Superintendent Engineer Mahabubnagar , A.P.C.P.D.C.L. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar. 5 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kothur, Mahabubnagar District. 6 The Grampanchayt Surpanc & Secretary Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar 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 issue appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with petitioner's Possession and on 22-5-209 respondent No.2 high handedly came to petitioner's land digged bore-wel for construction and raising constructions of Electrical Sub Station without any right over the property and not to made any illegal constructions in petitioners land and preventing the petitioner and his personnel to take up developmental activities in the land admeasuring Ac 0-14 gts in, Sy.No. 1578/E, Ac 0-11 gts in S.No. 1579/E and Ac 0-11 gts in Sy.No. 1580/E from S. Buchamma Ac 0-10 Gts in Sy.No. 1579 /AA Ac 0-12 Gts in Sy.No. 1578/AA and Ac 0-12 gts in Sy.No. 1580/AA situated at Nandigama Village , Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.10832 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is filed on an apprehension that the respondents, in particular the 2nd respondent, would dispossess the petitioner from the land in an extent of Ac.2.11 in Sy.No.1582/A and Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.1583/A which the petitioner claims to have purchased but under a registered agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession on 24-01- 2003. The petitioner is a real estate developer and wants to develop the above property for the purpose of sale as house plots. Earlier the petitioner had filed W.P.No.10773 of 2007 seeking a relief against the SHO, Kothur, Mahabub Nagar District not to interfere with his possession of the property. While so, it is alleged, the 2nd respondent came on to the petitioner’s property, dug a bore well and erected an electric sub station and is proceeding to make further illegal constructions on the land claiming that the property is government property. The petitioner denies that it is a government property and asserts that it is his own property. In the circumstances the writ petition is filed. On a careful consideration of the pleadings in the writ petition the petitioner seems to assert title while the State through the respondents are ascertaining competing title to the same property. The petitioner has not impleaded the State or any State instrumentality. The respondents 1 to 3 are the District Collector, Assistant Divisional Engineer and the Superintendent Engineer, APCPDCL. The petitioner also appears to incidentally assert a declaration of title and along there with an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his lawful ownership and possession of the property. Whether he seeks a declaration of title or a prohibitory injunction simplicitor, the petitioner has a remedy before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction which is a more effective and alternative remedy. On this analysis this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedy including before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 3rd JUNE 2009 *TSNR