IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5715 of 2008 Between: 1 Velpula Singaiah S/o.. Venkaiah R/o. Somarajupalle (V) Singarayakonda (M) Prakasam District. 2 Velpula Nageswara Rao S/o.Yanadi R/o. Somarajupalle (V) Singarayakonda (M) Prakasam District. 3 Narra Narayana S/o. Seshaiah R/o. Somarajupalle (V) Singarayakonda (M) Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad 2 Tahsildar, Singarayakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 Station House Officer, Singarayakonda Police Station, Prakasam 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandmaus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioners not to undertake plantation work and agricultural operations in their land of Ac 15-30 cents out of Ac 173.20 cents in Sy.No. 353/1B1 of Somarajupalli Revenue Village as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and offends articles, 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioners agricultural operations in the said land and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 5715 of 2008 Order: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioners not to undertake plantation work and agricultural operations in their land admeasuring Ac.15-30 cents out of Ac.173-20 cents situated in Survey No.353/1B1 of Somarajupalli revenue village, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioners agricultural operations in the land in question. The petitioners state that they are the absolute owners and possessors of land admeasuring Ac.15-30 cents out of Ac.173-20 cents, situated in Survey No.353/1B1 of Somarajupalli revenue village, having purchased the same under two registered Agreements of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 27.07.2007. The petitioners further state that when one Ponugoti Kondaiah and five others tried to interfere into their possession over the land in question, they filed a suit in O.S. No. 30 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur, and obtained temporary injunction orders against the said persons. While so, it is the case of the petitioners that at the instance of the above said persons, respondents 2 and 3 visited the lands in question on 10.03.2008 and orally instructed them not to undertake any plantation work and agricultural operations in the said lands alleging that some third parties are claiming that the lands in question should be continued as irrigation water tank. Questioning the said action of the respondents, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. A reading of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, would disclose that there are some disputes between the petitioners and others in respect of the lands in question, and the suit filed by the petitioners against the said persons, is pending adjudication before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur. If at the instance of the said persons, the respondents are interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment, the petitioners are at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the Court which passed an order of injunction in their favour by getting the respondents impleaded in the suit that is pending, and certainly the writ petition filed by them is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 01.08.2008 Nsr