IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14835 of 2009 Between: 1 Adusumallai Jayaramaiah S/o.Krishnaiah R/o.Molakalpoondla village Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District 2 Adusumallai Venkateswarlu S/o.Krishnaiah R/o.Molakalpoondla village Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District 3 Adusumallai Nageswara Rao S/o.Krishnaiah R/o.Molakalpoondla village Sydapuram Mandal, Nellore District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Prl. Secretary,For Revenue , Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur SPSR Nellore Districtr 4 The Thasildar, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declare the action on the part of the 4th respondent in laying a road of petitioner land inS.no.636/2 fopr an extent of Ac.5.40 cents situated at Molakalpoondla village, Sydapuram Mandal,SPSR Nellore District without passing any orders on the notice issued under Form No.7 of Land Encroachment Act amounts to erroneous arbitrary,and violative of Article 14,21, and 300(A) of Constitution of Indias and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere the petitioners alnds inS.No.636/2 for an extent of Ac.1.73 cents Ac.1.72 cents Ac.1.95 cents respectively in total Ac.5.40 cents situated at Molakalpoondla village,Sydapuram Mandal,SPSR Nellore District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.C.KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: Earlier at the instance of Adusumalli Pitchamma, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dt 8.6.2009 to the petitioners and two others calling upon them to appear before the 3rd respondent to answer the complaint of their interfering with the passage of the complainant Adusumalli Pitchamma to her land of an extent of Ac. 6.50 cents in S.No. 640/2 of Malakalpoondla village, Sydappuram Mandal, Nellore District. The petitioners state that they appeared before the 3rd respondent and explained that they are the owners of the property of an extent of Ac. 5.40 cents in S.No. 636/2 and that they are not encroaching or interfering in any manner with the rights of Pitchamma. Thereafter by a notice dt. 30.6.2009, purportedly under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act 1905, the petitioners are charged with encroaching on Government land of an extent of 0.90 cents in S.No., 636/1 of Malakalpoondla village and calling upon them to vacate the encroachment, failing which appropriate action would be taken. The petitioners submitted their explanation dt. 6.7.2009 to the 4th respondent (who had issued the Section 7 notice) setting out in detail their claim of ownership and possession of the property in S.No. 636/2 and denying encroachment of Government land in S.No. 636/1. According to the petitioners no further action has been taken including passing any final orders under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. Nevertheless, it is the complaint of the petitioners that the respondents are proceeding to lay a road through their land in S.No. 636/2. The petitioners’ complaint is that the respondents, without authority of law and without following the due process either under the Land Acquisition Act or by passing final orders under the Land Encroachment Act or any other formal process, are criminally trespassing into their land and interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In respect of such a complaint, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy by way of a suit before a civil court of competent jurisdiction to seek injunctive relief. If the petitioners apprehend imminent threat of dispossession, they may even seek dispensation of the notice, under Section 80(2) C.P.C. Even if they are dispossessed without following the due process of law, they may seek restoration of possession under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act 1963. In view of the availability of a raft of efficacious remedies before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to consider the grievance under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate alternative remedies. No order as to costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 24.7.2009. Issue C.C. in two days, B/o. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No. 14835 of 2009. Dated: 24.7.2009.