IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14150 of 2004 Between: R.Chandraiah, s/o Erranna, r/o Sajjanpally Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Assistant Executive Engineer, R.W.S.Department, Moinabad, Ranga Reddy 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus: i) declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to interfere with my agricultural operations through the bore-well situated in Sy.No.3 of Sajjanpally Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently; ii) direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the agricultural operations of the petitioner through the bore-well situated in Sy.No.3 of Sajjanpally Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14150 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: The writ petition as framed is misconceived as is the grievance on which it is based. The petitioner has not chosen to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh as respondent and instead has impleaded the Mandal Revenue Officer, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy district. The grievance in the writ petition is that the respondents are insisting to give water to the village from his bore well situated in his land in an extent of Ac.04-01 in survey No.3/AA, 6/AA & 7 of Sajjanpally village, Moinabad mandal, Ranga Reddy district. The petitioner disclaims any obligation to supply such water to the village nor any authority of the respondents to insist that he should supply the water to the village. However, the petitioner does not choose to state the relevant fact as to how the respondents are insisting that the petitioner should supply the water to the village and whether any proceedings are issued by either or both the respondents threatening the petitioner with deprivation of his liberty or whether the respondents have taken any other coercive steps. A vague and bald allegation is made that the respondents authorities are forcing the petitioner to supply water to the village and if he does not do so he would be dispossessed from the land in survey No.3/AA of Sajjanpally village, Moinabad mandal. In case the respondents seek to dispossess the petitioner without lawful authority, the petitioner has available a remedy to approach the civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of injunctive or a more comprehensive relief. If the respondents threaten the petitioner with any physical injury and without following the due process of law, the petitioner can complain to the nearest police of such criminal conduct of the respondents. At any rate, on the basis of the vague pleadings no relief could be granted. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 16-06-2008 Pvks/*