IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 21854 of 2008 Between: Nadimpalli Somaraju, S/o. Suryanarayana Raju, Resident of Jagannadhapuram, Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 2 The Tahsildar, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. 3 The Divisional Engineer, Public Works Department, Eluru, West Godavari 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in proposing to allot the land in Sy. No. 407, 409 of Vipparru Village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District under Indiramma Scheme as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to allot the land in favour of third parties and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.PULIPATI RADHIKA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is filed for a declaration that the yet to be taken action of the respondents in allotting the land in Sy.Nos. 407 and 409 of Vipparru village, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District to landless poor persons under the Indiramma scheme as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner states that he and his father own an extent of Ac.5- 00 agricultural land in R.S.Nos. 421/6, 421/7A, 421/8 and 431/9 of Vipparru village ayacut, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. Adjacent to the said land there is a Government poramboke in Sy.Nos. 407 and 409 and adjacent thereto an R & B road leading from Tadepalligudem to Ganapavaram (via) West Vipparru and to the east of the road the Venkayya Vayyeru canal passing from Tadepalligudem to Akiveedu. The petitioner asserts to be using the Government poramboke land since the time immemorial for ingress and egress to the road. He asserts that he has no other path for ingress and egress to his lands. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 11- 2-2006 for assignment, to utilize the poramboke or for grant of lease or otherwise for the use of the same as a passage. Apprehending that the 2nd respondent would allot the poramboke under the Indiramma Housing Scheme programme to weaker sections, the petitioner is before this Court. The writ petition is silent as to any overt action taken by the respondents to allot the Government poramboke to the landless poor persons. No proceedings are mentioned and no particular conduct of the 2nd respondent is asserted as the foundation for his apprehension. To this extent the writ petition is premature and is filed as a pre- emptive action against legitimate statutory or administrative discretion. With regard to the other claims of the right of passage through the poramboke land apart from a representation to the appropriate respondents, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction by asserting an easement of necessity, if such is the case. The claims of the petitioner in this regard and consequential relief sought are inappropriate under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is not maintainable. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate litigative strategies before the appropriate fora. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th June, 2009. GRR