THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.27423 of 2010 Date: 03.11.2010 Between: Muppala Venkataramana @ Venkatramaiah ..... Petitioner AND The State, represented by its District Collector, Chittoor, and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.V. Raghava Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.3: Smt. Ch. Vedavani, standing counsel for Gram Panchayats Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 to 7: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his land admeasuring Ac.0.04 cents in survey No.17/18B of Kothapalem Village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District, without issuing notice and following due process of law, at the instance of the unofficial respondents, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner averred that he was granted patta in respect of land to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in the abovementioned survey number under INDIRAMMA housing scheme. But, however, he is in possession of an additional extent of Ac.0.02 cents, which admittedly belongs to the Government. When certain third parties sought to dispossess the petitioner with the support of respondent Nos.2 and 3, he filed O.S.No.846 of 2006 in the Court of the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati (for short ‘civil Court’) against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and the civil Court granted injunction against respondent Nos.5 to 7, by order dated 04.09.2006 in I.A.No.1192 of 2006. It is the case of the petitioner that at the instance of respondent No.4, respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to his land on 28.10.2010 and threatened to dispossess him stating that the said land is proposed to be allotted to respondent Nos.4 to 7. In my opinion, the petitioner having already approached the civil Court and availed a common law remedy not only against the unofficial respondents but also against the official respondents, he is not entitled to invoke the public law remedy for the same land which is the subject matter of the civil Court. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the pending suit. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.35018 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd November, 2010 GHN