IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11351 of 2009 Between: 1 K. Sudhakar Reddy S/o. Yedaiah Reddy R/o. Kushiguda Village, Kesara Mandal, R.R. District. 2 K. Bhopal Reddy S/o. Bal Reddy R/o. Kushiguda Village, Kesara Mandal, R.R. District. 3 Srinivas Reddy S/o. Narasimha Reddy R/o. Kushiguda Village, Kesara Mandal, R.R. District. 4 K. Adavi Reddy S/o. Anji Reddy R/o. Kushiguda Village, Kesara Mandal, R.R. District. 5 K. Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o. Late Buchaiah Reddy R/o. Kushiguda Village, Kesara Mandal, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kesara Mandal, R.R. District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer Kesara Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to disposess the petitioners from the land admeasuring Ac 2.00 gts in Sy.No. 1991/ situated at Kapara Village, Kesara Mandal, R. R. District without issue of any notice contrary to the directions in the LGC No. 71/89 dt. 24-3-1992 filed by the State as being illegally, arbitrary, capricious, malafide and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR SYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.11351 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is misconceived. The singular issue presented in this writ petition is a grievance of the petitioners that the respondents 3 and 4 without following the due process of law, without initiating any formal proceedings under any law, in abuse of official authority and position and under the colour of public office are proceeding to dispossess the petitioners from the lands of an extent of Ac.2.00 gts in Sy.No.19/1 of Kapra village, Kesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Against 20 individuals including Komrelli Balaiah (the 19th respondent), who the petitioners’ claim was their grand father since deceased, the State filed L.G.C.No.71 of 1989 before the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act. The LGC was dismissed. The Special Court, however, recorded a finding that the respondents did not have title to the property but were in permissive possession of the same. The claim of the respondents as to having acquired title to the property by adverse possession was also rejected. According to the petitioners, after the demise of K.Balaiah they continued in permissive possession and as per the established principles of law they could be dispossessed only by following the due process of law either under the Land Encroachment Act or any other applicable legislative environment. Instead of following the formal due process of law the respondents 3 and 4 by illegally and without jurisdiction are threatening the petitioners with dispossession, is the complaint in this writ petition. Though the respondents 3 and 4 are holders of a public office as the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer of Kesara Mandal, they per se do not constitute the State or Instrumentality of the State. They are mere State actors holding a public office and are amenable to judicial process before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction in an appropriate proceedings such as a suit for injunctive relief and without the petitioners having to serve a notice under Sec.80 CPC since such a suit would not be against a State. On the aforesaid analysis, the petitioners have an effective alternative and efficacious remedy before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and are relegated to pursue such remedies. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedies. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 11th JUNE 2009 Note: issue cc by two days (B/O) *TSNR