IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27748 of 2008 Between: 1 K. Jaya Chandra Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, R/o. Pedda Jonnavaram Village, Duvvuru Mandal, Kadapa District. 2 P. Laxmi Narsamma, W/o. Late T. Rama Chandra Reddy, R/o. Pedda Jonnavaram Village, Duvvuru Mandal, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 2 The Tahasildar, Duvvuru, Kadapa District. .....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 issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.B2/207/2008, dated 27-11-2008 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary biased and contrary to the law and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to not to interfere in civil disputes. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.JAYARAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27748 of 2008 ORDER: Second petitioner is owner of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.4.70 in survey No.228/4 situated at Pedda Jonnavaram village of Duvvuru Mandal in Kadapa District. First petitioner is tenant for the last ten years. It is the case of petitioners that Chinna Kullaya Reddy, who is brother of husband of second petitioner, got an extent of Acs.2.40 in survey No.228/4 to his share. Taking advantage of his possession as Village Administrative Officer, Duvvuru Mandal, he forged signatures of second petitioner and modified extent of land in passbooks contrary to family partition. A complaint was therefore lodged before first respondent, which is pending. There was also dispute between second petitioner and Chinna Kullaya Reddy. In the meanwhile, first respondent issued notice bearing Ref.No.B/207/2008, dated 27.11.2008, calling upon petitioner to remove pipeline from the land of Timma Reddy Venkatapathi Reddy, S/o.T.Chinna Kullaya Reddy, in survey No.228/4 of the village. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that Tahsildar has no such power to issue notice to remove pipeline in the land comprised in survey No.228/4. He however does not dispute that pipeline was laid by petitioners. By impugned notice petitioners are informed to remove pipeline within seven days presumably on a complaint given by Timma Reddy Venkatapathi Reddy, S/o.T.Chinna Kullaya Reddy. When petitioners do not dispute partition between husband of second petitioner and Chinna Kullaya Reddy, in which Chinna Kullaya Reddy got some portion of land in survey No.228/4 and when there was no denial by petitioners that pipeline was laid in the land of other brother, there is nothing wrong for Tahsildar to issue notice to petitioners to remove pipeline. If petitioners have any grievance, they can as well approach Tahsildar, Duvvuru, and explain the possession. They can also approach Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu–first respondent herein; by way of appeal and seek redressal. In a matter of this nature where there is serious dispute with regard to property that fell between two brothers, writ petition would not lie. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, giving liberty to petitioners to avail any of remedies referred to herein above. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) December 22, 2008. YS To 1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa District. 2 The Tahasildar, Duvvuru, Kadapa District. 3 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 4 Two CD copies.