IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11512 of 2009 Between: Smt. Komida Eashwaramma W/o. Bikshapathi R/o. Punnelu (V) Wardhannapet (M) Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Warangal 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal 3 Tahsildar, Wardhannapet (Mandal) Warangal District. 4 Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Punnelu (V) Wardhannapet (M) Warangal 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 suitable writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmus declaring the action of the respondents in demarcating the land for laying 20' wide road across the land of the petitioner without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and violative Articcle 300-A of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents not to lay 20' wide road across the land of the petitioner situated at S.No. 6 of Punnelu (V) Wardhannapet and Mandal, Warangal District without following due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.11512 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The singular grievance herein is that the Tahsildar, Wardhannapet - 3rd respondent, in abuse of official position and under the colour of official authority is proceeding to dispossess the petitioner of the land in an extent of Ac.2.14 guntas in Sy.No.6 of Punnelu Village, Wardhannapet Mandal, Warangal District by attempting to lay a 20 feet wide road in the property without following the due process of law either by acquisition of the property or if the concerned respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner is an encroacher, by taking steps for removing the encroachments. The petitioner contends that this cannot be done in law. If the petitioner is in possession of the property in question, irrespective of whether she has a title thereto, the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession and may be dispossessed only by following the due process of law. If the 3rd respondent who is a holder of a public office attempts to dispossess the petitioner, the petitioner has a plurality of remedies. She could make a complaint to the jurisdictional police about the attempts of the said respondents to criminally trespass into the property and if the police are indifferent to such complaint, the petitioner can lodge a private complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner may also seek injunctive relief before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and in an emergency the petitioner may avail the right of private defence to the property including against a Tahasildar as well. As the petitioner has effective alternative remedies in particular before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, this court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and relegates the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy in a forum proximal to her habitat. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 12th JUNE 2009 *TSNR