IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11276 of 2009 Between: D. Nagaraja Reddy S/o. Venkatarama Reddy R/o. Pamanaboyanapalli, Bandarlapalli Post, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tahasildar Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the naeture of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and while calling for the records if any and declare the action of the respondent is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and such is in violation of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and the rule of governance and further direct the respondent herein not to interfere with my bore well and connected agricultural operation thereof withoutn due process of law and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.V.L.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.11276 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER Only the Tahasildar, Ramakuppam Manal, Chittoor District is impleaded as a respondent in this writ petition. Neither the State nor an Instrumentality of the State is impleaded as respondent. The petitioner alleges that despite having pattadar pass books and title deeds for agricultural lands in Sy.No.12/5, 17/2, 17/3 and 11/2-A of Pamanaboyanapalli, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, of the extents mentioned in para.3 of the writ petition, the respondent has come on to the site and asked the petitioner to remove the bore well without issuing any proceedings or without lawful authority. If a person holding a public office such as the respondent interferes with citizens’ right to property without following the due process of law, the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction by way of a suit for injunction without the necessity even of issuing a notice under Section.80 CPC, issuable only when a suit is directed against the State or Central Government. As the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy very proximal to his habitat, this court is not inclined to adjudicate upon his grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the civil Court. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 10th JUNE 2009 *TSNR