IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13780 of 2009 Between: Najmuddin Hussani, S/o. late Nayeemuddin Hussani, R/o. 20-4-209/3/7, Khilwath, Charminar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 4 Saroor Nagar Municipality Rep. by its Commissioner, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy 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,order, directino more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to act according to law, declare the interference of the Respondents and their subordinates in the lands of petitioner in Sy.No. 144 (Ac.0.09 Gts) & S.NO. 145(Ac. 2-25 Gts) situated at Jalpally Village Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.DAS MOHAPATRA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Unauthorized and unlawful interference with the petitioner’s right of ownership and possession of patta land of an extent of Ac. 1.09 gts in S.No. 144 and Ac. 2.25 gts in S.No. 145 of Jalpally village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by the “respondent officials/subordinates” is the allegation in this writ petition. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent issued a certificate that the petitioner is a pattadar of the lands in question and that these lands do not come under FTL area or under urban land ceiling. Even so, the “respondent officials/subordinates” are coming on to the land and are trying to interfere with the petitioner’s agricultural operations is the allegation. As the petitioner apprehends unlawful conduct by a public authority, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedial measures; by making a complaint to the jurisdictional police or to the Judicial Magistrate concerned by way of a private complaint. If the petitioner is aggrieved by civil interference, the petitioner may pursue appropriate injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction and if there is imminent threat of dispossession, the petitioner may seek emergent relief including by seeking exemption from the requirement of issuing a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. As the petitioner has ample and alternative remedies proximal to his habitat, this Court is not inclined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 10.7.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 13780 of 2009 Dated: 10.7.2009.