HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.31232 of 2010 Date : 13-12-2010 Between : M.Manohar Reddy s/o.Narayana Reddy .. Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4 : The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in treating land admeasuring Ac.2-37 cents, situate in Sy.No.875/2B of Bethamcherla village, Bethamcherla Mandal, Kurnool District as Government land, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner claims that the above mentioned land is a private land belonging to him. He has traced his title with reference to a transaction involving his predecessors-in-title in the year 1934. The petitioner averred that on 1-12-2003, respondent No.3 has come to the site and started measuring the land and that when he questioned the latter’s interference, he claimed that the entire land belongs to the Government and he was proceeding to grant D- Form pattas. The petitioner then submitted a written representation on 7-12-2010 to respondent No.3 bringing to his notice about his title and that though respondent No.3 has not responded to the said letter, certain persons claiming that they were granted pattas have tried to encroach his land. The petitioner has therefore filed the present Writ Petition. I have heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In his representation, a copy of which is filed, the petitioner has not alleged that respondent No.3 has come to the land in question on 1-12-2010 He has merely mentioned that some persons have come to the above mentioned land and started constructing houses on the ground that pattas were granted to them. If the petitioner is the owner of the property, he is entitled to assert his title and protect himself from interference by third parties by availing a common law remedy. While the petitioner has not come out with the complaint that respondent No.3 at any time visited his land in his earliest version given in the representation, he has however, improved his case in the affidavit filed in the Writ Petition by alleging that respondent No.3 has come to the site. At any rate, even if respondent No.3 seeks to unduly interfere with the petitioner’s right and enjoyment of the land, the latter is entitled to avail the common law remedy of filing a suit even against respondent No.3. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that in the light of the facts of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by invoking public law remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.39732/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 13-12-2010 Note: Furnish copy in a week. AM