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 : 436 of 2009 Between: 1 Garika Guravaiah S/o.Muthaiah R/o.H.No.5-215, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. 2 Yerrabadi Srinivasa Rao S/o.Nagaiah R/o.H.No.5-213, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. 3 Garika Krishna S/o.Narayana R/o.H.No.5-216, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. 4 Sriram Chukkamma W/o.late Pitchaiah R/o.H.No.5-216, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. 5 Sriram Nageswara Rao S/o.Krishnaiah R/o.H.No.5-215/1, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. 6 Sriram Seetha W/o.Narayana R/o.H.No.5-219, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. 7 Berothula Adinarayana S/o.Nagabushanam R/o.H.No.5-215, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. 8 Garika Chukkamma W/o.Venkateswarlu R/o.H.No.5-214, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. 9 Kojja Krishna Kumari W/o.Veeraiah R/o.H.No.5-213, Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet Town, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2 The Tahsildar, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District. 3 The Municipal Commissioner, Jaggaiahpet Municipality, Krishna District. 4 The Station House Officer, Jaggaiahpet, P.S. Krishna 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 Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in threatening to demolish the houses of the petitioners bearing H.No.5-215, H.No.5-213, H.No.5-216, H.No.5-216, H.No.5- 215/1, H.No.5-219, H.No.5-215, H.No.5-214, H.No.5-213, situated at Sitharampuram, Jaggaiahpet town, Krishna District, without issuing any notice and without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not demolish or in any interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of their respective houses mentioned above, and to grant such other relief or reliefs. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The writ petition is misconceived and mis-framed. Neither the State nor an Instrumentality of the State is impleaded as respondents in this writ petition. The petitioners have merely impleaded the District Ccollector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, the Tahsildar, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, the Municipal Commissioner, Jaggaiahpet Municipality and the Station House Officer, Jaggaiahpet P.S. The writ petition is filed apprehending that the respondents will demolish the houses of the petitioners described in para 2 of the writ petition. In para 5, there is a vague allegation that the respondents, on 16-1-2009 came to the petitioners and threatened them to vacate the premises and hand over the same to the State. The petitioners admit to be encroachers of land to which they have no title but claim to have encroached the property about 20 years back. Since the writ petition is not directed against the State or an Instrumentality of the State but by mere designated public officers such as the District Collector and the Tahasildar, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy of approaching the civil court of competent jurisdiction. Even the impediment of issuance of a notice under Section 80 of CPC would not arise, since the suit would not be against the Government. The pleadings in the writ petition are also extremely vague. It is not stated which official came on which date. An omnibus allegation is made. In the circumstances, this court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the grievance presented in this writ petition. It requires to be noticed that the 4th respondent has also filed a counter-affidavit categorically denying the allegations made against the said respondent in the writ petition. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 9th June, 2009. GRR