IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 7594 of 2009 Between: Smt.P.Arundhati W/o.P.Sai Kumar R/o.H.No.29-1508/1/7/3/6, Hill Colony, Malkajgiri, R.R. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad. 3 The Special Deputy Collector, Land Protection Cell, R.R. District, Hyderabad. 4 The Tahsildar, Malkajgiri Mandal, Neredmet, R.R. 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 Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 4th Respondent from demolishing the structure existing in House bearing No. 29-1508/1/7/3/6, to an extent of 60 Sq. yards, situated at Hill Colony, Malkajgiri, R.R. District, without considering petitioner application for regularization dated 30.08.2008 as illegal and contrary to the law and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.THUMUCHANDRA SHEKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The singular grievance in this writ petition is that the 4th respondent along with other ‘officials’ of Malkajigiri mandal visited a plot of 60 sq. yards belonging to the Government and admittedly encroached by the petitioner and are threatening to dispossess him and demolish the structures therein. If the petitioner is aggrieved that a Tahsildar, without the authority of law and merely on color of a Public officer trespasses or commits other cognizable conduct including of demolition of structures to the detriment of the petitioner’s right under Article 300A of the Constitution, the petitioner has a plurality of remedies by way of a civil suit seeking injunction before a civil court of competent jurisdiction even without having to issue a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. A notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is only required against the Government or against a Public Officer in respect of an act done by a public officer in purported exercise of power in his official capacity. A person holding a public office proceeding to a land in occupation of a citizen without any legal proceeding either for acquisition or for eviction of illegal encroachment cannot be construed in public law to be an act done by a public officer in purported exercise of his official capacity. Since the petitioner has an effective and alternative remedy before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to pursue the appropriate alternative remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, at a place more proximal to the petitioner’s habitat. No order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 22.6.2009. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 7594 OF 2009 DATED: 22.6.2009.