THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.19826 of 2010 Date : 3-11-2010 Between : Bille Nagappa s/o.Peddanna .. Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Anantapur, Anantapur District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Srinivas Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3 : None Counsel for respondent No.2 : Smt.Ch.Veda Vani, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent No.4 : Sri N.Aswartha Narayana The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in acting on the petitioner’s representation dated 6-8-2010 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.4. The petitioner claims to be in possession of land belonging to Government comprised in Sy.Nos.191 and 203 in plot No.18 of Alamuru, Anantapur District. According to the petitioner, possession certificate 7-10-2003 was issued in his favour by the revenue officials. When respondent No.4 allegedly tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, he filed O.S.No.915/2008 in the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapur (Civil Court) and I.A.No.1516/2008 in the said suit. That by order dated 12-12- 2008, the Civil Court granted temporary injunction and that an exparte decree was passed in the said suit. The petitioner alleged that in spite of existence of exparte decree, respondent No.4 constructed a wall over the said property and that the petitioner has made an application before the Additional Superintendent of Police against the said action of respondent No.4 and that the said representation was endorsed to respondent No.3 for taking action. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has also approached respondent No.3 for taking action against respondent No.4 and that as no action has been taken, the present Writ Petition is filed. From the facts noted above, it is clear that the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court and obtained a decree for injunction. If respondent No.4 has constructed a wall contrary to the said decree, the petitioner is entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings in the Court which has granted the decree. The petitioner cannot approach different authorities and avail the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court on the purported inaction of such authorities when he is entitled in law to avail the appropriate remedy for enforcement of the decree obtained by him. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedies in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.25114/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date : 3-11-2010 AM