IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17761 of 2008 Between: 1 Duggineni Nageswara Rao, s/o. Venkataiah, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 2 Duggineni Chandraiah, s/o. Venkataiah, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 3 Duggineni Venkata Subbaiah, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Duggineni Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 5 Duggineni Ramulu, S/o. Venkata Ramaiah, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 6 Duggineni Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Ramulu, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 7 Maguluri Subbayamma, W/o. Nagaiah, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 8 Duggineni Adinarayana, S/o. Subba Rao, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 9 Duggineni Venkata Seshamma, W/o. Anjaneyulu, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 10 Duggineni Rama Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 11 Duggineni Nageswara Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, r/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 The Special Collector, Kandukur, Obulareddy Project, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 Jagarlamudi Venkateswarlu, S/o. Pitchaiah, R/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Addaki. 5 Pothuri Sankaranarayana, S/o. Kotaiah, R/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Addaki. 6 Vemula Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Subbaramaiah, R/o. Thammavaram Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Addaki. 7 The Government of A.P. Rep by its Principal Secretary Panchayatraj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.A.V.L.V.PRASAD for MR. M.V.RAJA RAM Counsel for Respondents 3 & 7: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7 in allowing respondent Nos.4 to 6 to encroach the road and plain area allotted to the beneﬁciaries as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondent Nos.3 and 7 and perused the record. The grievance of the petitioners as reﬂected from the averments contained in their aﬃdavit is that in respect of house pattas, which were allotted to the petitioners in Survey No.155/1B, respondent Nos.4 to 6 have been making their attempts to encroach into some of those lands including the road portion; that the said respondents ﬁled O.S.No.127 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki; that the Advocate Commissioner, who was appointed in I.A.No.691 of 2007 in the said suit, submitted his report stating that there is no encroachment as alleged by respondent Nos.4 to 6 and that the “oﬃcial respondents” have not taken any steps to protect the rights of the petitioners. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ issued by the superior Courts to the State and its authorities to perform legal duty and to keep subordinates/inferior bodies/tribunals within their jurisdiction (See Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain [1]). In the aﬃdavit, the petitioners have not pointed out any statutory provision, under which, the executive of the State is bound to protect the private properties of the citizens by preventing third parties from encroaching into the land. If the petitioners claim interest over the properties, which are proposed to be encroached into by respondent Nos.4 to 6, they are entitled to avail the remedies available to them in common law, such as, ﬁling a civil suit or by approaching Courts under the special enactments, such as, Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. In the instant case, even according to the averments in the aﬃdavit, respondent Nos.4 to 6 ﬁled a civil suit and the same is pending. The petitioners shall be entitled to contest the said suit and see that they are not granted any relief by the civil Court. In addition to the same, the petitioners can also move the competent civil Court to claim relief against respondent Nos.4 to 6. The petitioners failed to make out a case of failure of the oﬃcial respondents to carry out their legal duty, in order to persuade this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th AUGUST, 2008. kvni [1] (2008) 2 SCC 280