THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1750 of 2008 Date: 04.02.2008 Between: Kunche Raju … Petitioner AND The Bhimavaram Municipality, Rep by Commissioner, Bhimavaram, W.G.District. & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Y.V.Srinivasan Counsel for respondents: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1750 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of thatched house raised in an extent of 75 sq.yards of land situated in 31st Ward, A.S.R.Nagar, Bimavaram without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner claimed that he occupied an extent of 75 sq.yards of vacant poramboke about 15 years ago and that he raised a thatched house on the said site. He further alleged that respondent No.1 Municipality assessed the same for payment of tax and suddenly on 30.1.2008 at 10.00 A.M., respondent No.3 and his subordinates came to the premises and directed him to vacate the same. Though the petitioner requested them not to disturb his possession, they gave the petitioner three days’ time to vacate threatening that they would demolish the structure after three days. The petitioner further averred that he filed a civil suit against some private parties in respect of the same property wherein he sought for injunction against them and that he impleaded the municipality and revenue authorities in the said suit as he is in occupation of the land belonging to them. Heard Sri Y.V.Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner. On his own admission, the petitioner is in occupation of the land belonging to respondent No.1 municipality. This apart, the petitioner himself stated in the affidavit that he already filed a civil suit against some third parties and also the municipality and the revenue authorities. Though it is claimed that no relief has been sought against the said authorities, the petitioner has not explained why he has not chosen any relief against the said authorities. Having already availed the remedy before a competent civil Court, the petitioner cannot maintain a parallel proceeding by filing the present writ petition. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in the pending civil suit. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:04.02.2008 mdaa