IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11770 of 2008 Between: C.Obaiah S/o.Gopal R/o.Mallela Village Thonduru Mandal, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The AP STate Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Managing Director,Musheerabad X Roads,Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Depot Pulivendula kadapa District 3 The Thahashildar,Thondur Mandal, Kadapa 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 pass orders particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the high handed action of the action of the respondents in constructing a bus shelter in theproperty belonging to the petitioner land without any power as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14,21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to remove the foundation in Sy.No.613/1 of Mallela village and grant such other relief as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.KASAJAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed on a complaint that the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and in particular the Pulivendula, Cuddapah District depot of the RTC is interfering, encroaching and proceeding to make unauthorized constructions in the petitioner’s property in an extent of 45 x 90 feet in Sy.No.613/1, Mallela Village, for which property the Gram Panchayat has also granted House No.3/156. The petitioner claims to have inherited the property and the title thereto, on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 3.10.2007 from his father, who in turn inherited it from his paternal aunt one Smt. Obulamma. In respect of such grievance as to civil interference by the respondents with the petitioner’s ownership and possession of immovable property, the petitioner is seen to have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a civil suit before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the petitioner must be relegated to pursue the available efficacious statutory remedy. No case is made out for interference by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. This Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion to bypass the available civil remedy and take up this grievance. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 20.6.2008 cvm