IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10826 of 2009 Between: 1 Peesa Tamma Naidu S/o. Venkata Swamy R./o. H.No. 40-1-16/13/1, Kasturi Nagar, Kilasapuram Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Ch. Satyavathi W/o. Sree Rama Murthy R./o. H.No. 40-1-60/13, Kasturi Nagar, Kilasapuram Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector/Land Acquisition Officer Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Commissioner , Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Sri Varalakshmi Narasimhaswami Vari Devasthanam Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioners to evict from their respective premises in Sy.No. 251/1D and 275/5 of Adivivaram Village, of Visakhapatnam District to an extent of 100 sq. yards and 400 sq. yards. For the purpose of public utility without specify reasons under political considerations without notice or opportunity and without acquiring the same and payaing compenstion and following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary and against the rights guaranteed under Art. 300 A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the repondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective premises other wise than due procedure established by law and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.K.PARDHASARADHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.10826 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The writ petition is filed on an apprehension that the respondents 2 to 4 would dispossess the petitioners and evict them from their respective premises in Sy.No.352/1D and 275/5 of Adivivaram Village, Visakhaptnam District without following the due process of law. The petitioners claim to be the owners of 100 square yards and 400 square yards respectively in the premises aforementioned having purchased the same for valuable consideration. They allege that on 18-01-2009 respondents 1 to 4 came on to the premises and threatened the petitioners to vacate the premises within 15 days or else they would proceed further since these vacant sites were identified for allotment for some public utility. The petitioners allege that the respondents 2 to 4 again came to the property on 21-05-2009 and reiterated the threat. The writ petition is filed alleging that without initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act,1894 or any other law for lawfully evicting the petitioners the respondents, under the colour of public office and employment of sovereign force without legal authority, are threatening to dispossess the petitioners. If the petitioners are aggrieved by any such conduct as alleged by the respondents 1 to 3 who are mere holders of a public office and not a State or an instrumentality of the state, the petitioners have a plurality of remedies. They can pursue for prosecution of any holder of a pubic office for criminal trespass or any other cognizable offence under Indian Penal Code by lodging a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate if they apprehend that the police would not register the complaint and taking up investigation. The petitioners can also seek injunctive relief before a civil court of competent jurisdiction and in case of emergency the petitioners can also exercise right of private defence to safeguard their property against any depredation except in accordance with law and the right of private defence can extend to use of proportionate force against any person including a person in public office whether the Revenue Divisional Officer, or the Commissioner of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. Insofar as the 4th respondent is concerned, there is no specific allegation as to which officer of the 4th respondent had pursued coercive behavior against the petitioners. On the aforesaid analysis, this court is not inclined to exercise discretion to alleviate the petitioners’ apprehension at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate alternative remedies. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 3rd JUNE 2009 *TSNR