IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10204 of 2008 Between: 1 Palla Ramachandra Rao S/o. Palla Appa Narasaiah R./o. Ramajogipet, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 Palla Suryaprakash Rao S/o. Late Appa Narasaiah R./o. Ramajogipet, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 Palla Venugopal Rao S/o. Late Appa Rao R./o. Ramajogipet, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 Palla Ranganayakulu S/o. Late Venkaiah R/o. 50-74-5/1, Ganeshnagar, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5 Palla Jagannadha Rao S/o.Late Poli Naidu R/o. D.No.14-14-5, Ramajogipeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Palla Appala Raju S/o.Late Poli Naidu R/o. D.No.14-14-5, Ramajogipeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 7 Palla Chalapathi Rao S/o.Late Poli Naidu R/o. D.No.14-14-5, Ramajogipeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 8 Palla Tirumala Rao S/o.Late Appa Rao R/o. D.No.14-11-7/A, Ramajogipeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 9 Palla Ramana Murthy S/o. Late Appa Rao R/o. D.No.14-11-7/A,, Ramajogipeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 10 Palla Viswanadham S/o. Late Appa Rao R/o. D.No.14-11-7/A,, Ramajogipeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 11 Palla Krishna Murthy S/o. Late Appa Rao R/o. D.No.14-11-7/A,, Ramajogipeta, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 12 Palla Krishna Mohan S/o. late Atchyuta Narayana R/o. Flat No. 106, Gajanda Fort, Sanjeeva Nagar, NAD Kotta Road, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 13 Palla Srinivas Rao S/o. late Atchyuta Narayana R/o. Flat No. 106, Gajanda Fort, Sanjeeva Nagar, NAD Kotta Road, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 14 Palla Madusudhan Rao S/o. late Atchyuta Narayana R/o. Flat No. 106, Gajanda Fort, Sanjeeva Nagar, NAD Kotta Road, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 15 Palla Rajendra Kumar S/o. late Atchyuta Narayana R/o. Flat No. 106, Gajanda Fort, Sanjeeva Nagar, (All The petitioners are Rep. by their GPA Holder Sri Datla Venkata Krishna Raju S/o.Late Suryanarayana Raju aged 56 years, Business, R/o. B-2, Seasurf Aprtments, Duch House Layout, Visakhapatham-17) ..... PETITIONERS AND Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Chinna Gadiri Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in interfering with the fencing of the land admeasuring Ac 19.65 cents in Sy.No.346/2 to 346/7 and 346/9 situated at yeguva Thimmapuram Village, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. which is in the possession of the petitioners and in respect of which is in the possession of the petitioners and in respect of which patta was already granted as arbitrary illegal, and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.10204 OF 2008 ORDER: Petitioners are legal heirs of one Palla Venkayya, S/o.Appaiah. Statedly he was ryot under Zamindar of Vizianagaram in respect of land admeasuring Acs.40.50 situated in original survey (O.S.) No.389 (new R.S.No.346) of Madhurawada. He was allegedly in possession of the land. After coming into force of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (the Act, for brevity), six sons of Venkaiah and other legal heirs filed applications under Section 11(a) of the Act for grant of ryotwari patta. These applications were dismissed on 27.4.2002. They unsuccessfully preferred revision before Director of Settlements. After dismissal of their cases by Director of Settlements, they filed representation before the Commissioner of Appeals, Government of Andhra Pradesh. These revision was allowed on 26.3.2004. The matter was remanded to Settlement Officer. The settlement Officer granted ryotwari patta to petitioners in respect of Acs.19.65 vide proceedings S.R.No.11(A)/26/2004/F2 (Rc.No.4144/ 2000/F2), dated 17.9.2004. However claim for ryotwari patta in respect of Acs.12.35 was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners filed appeal before the Director of Settlements, being appeal No.33 of 2004. The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam, also filed appeal insofar as patta granted in respect of Acs.19.65. The same is pending. Petitioners filed O.S.No.298 of 2007 against third parties alleging that there was interference by defendants. It appears that Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, passed interim orders restraining any interference. In the man while, petitioners took up work of fencing the land admeasuring Acs.19.75 on the ground that the land is adjacent to road and there is constant threat of interference by third parties. They allege that respondent interfered with fencing of land. Therefore they filed instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring action of Tahsildar in interfering with fencing work as illegal and arbitrary. Learned Counsel for petitioners made elaborate submissions. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-Andhra Area) opposed writ petition contending that when petitioners have already filed O.S.No.298 of 2007 and obtained interim orders to protect their possession, there is no necessity to take up fencing work. Secondly he submits that when appeal filed by Tahsildar against grant of patta in respect of Acs.19.65 is pending, petitioners cannot be permitted to take up fencing work. As rightly pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader that when petitioners have already invoked civil law remedy by filing suit, nothing prevents them to obtain necessary orders from civil court. It is well settled that a person cannot simultaneously pursue remedy in civil court as well as constitutional court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Secondly, when petitioners also filed appeal against the order of Settlement Officer dated 17.9.2004, aggrieved by rejection of patta for Acs.12.36, nothing prevents them from approaching Director of Settlements and obtain interim orders. In that view of the matter, writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) November 25, 2008 YS To 1. Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam (Rural) Chinna Gadiri Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2. Two CCs to Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 3. Two C.D. Copies.