IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11639 of 2009 Between: Cherukuri Gopinath, S/o. Ch. Rama Rao, R/o. Plot No. 287, Phase-IV, CBI Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at Lak-di-pool, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Collector & Tahasildar, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from plot No. 33 to 36, totally admeasuring 877.77 sq.yards, covered by Sy.Nos. 220/2 and 220/3, situated at Kunloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District, without following due process of law and without even issuing any notice, is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also against the principle of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the said plots without following due process of law, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SHIV KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.11639 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The substantive grievance of the petitioner is that despite having title under a registered sale deed bearing document No.10193/2004 dated 12-07-2004 executed in the petitioner’s favour by one Sangeetha Jadhav wife of Umakanth Jadhav (who in turn derived title under a registered sale deed from one Kantha Bai under a registered sale deed dated 28-07-2000 bearing document No.5817/ 2000 and Kantha Bai having purchased the schedule property included in a total extent of Ac.8.08 cents in Sy.No.220/2 and 220/3 of Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar Mandal from the original pattedar Sri Pullaih @ Pulla Reddy under a registered sale deed of 1975), the 3rd respondent is interfering without lawful authority. On 11-06-2009 the 3rd respondent and other officials allegedly came to the property now described as “Kantha Bai Layout” and started removing the boundary stones. The officials had come on to the land without any authority or law, without passing any formal orders either for acquisition, eviction of encroachment or otherwise, claiming that these lands are government lands. The substantive grievance of the petitioner as revealed in the writ petition is against the alleged arbitrary and unlawful conduct amounting to criminal trespass of certain persons holding a public office whether the Deputy Collector and Tahasildar of Hayathnagar Mandal or his officials. In respect of such grievance the petitioner has a plurality of remedies. He may in an emergency exercise the right of private defence. He may complain to the jurisdictional police or to the Magistrate by way of a private complaint against such cognizable criminality of the Deputy Collector-cum-Tahasildar or other officers allegedly deputed by the said official. He may also seek injunctive relief before the civil court of competent jurisdiction impleading the individuals including the so-called abettor of the transaction, the Deputy Collector and Tahasildar by name. Even if the petitioner seeks to pursue a civil remedy by way of injunctive relief, it is not necessary to issue notice under Sec.80 CPC since such a suit would not be directed against a State but against a person holding a public office allegedly misusing such public office or the colour of such office for unlawfully dispossessing the petitioner. In the context of the plurality of alternative and efficacious remedies available, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedies. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 16th JUNE 2009 Note: issue cc by two days (B/O) *TSNR