IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12381 of 2009 Between: Ravi Varalakshmi W/o.Srinivas R/o.Velpur village, Tanuku Mandal West Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra PRadesh, Department of Revenue (Land Acquisition), rep.by its Principal Secretary Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, West Godavari District, At Eluru 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisiton Officer Eluru, West Godavari District 4 The Tahasildar,Bheemadole Mandal, Bheemadole, West Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in acquiring theland belongs to the petitionr admeasuring Ac.4.05 cents (Ac.1.14 cents in SY.No.273/1) Ac.1.109 cents in SY.No.273/2 and Ac.1.82 cents in Sy.no.274/2) situated in Kolasanipalli village,Bheemadole Mandal, West Godavari District as contrary to law arbitrary, and against the principles of natural justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition NO.12381 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The substantive grievance in this writ petition is that the respondents are interfering with the petitioner’s agricultural land of an extent of Ac.4.05 cents in Sy.Nos.273/1, 2, 274/1 in Kolasanipali Village, Bheemadole Mandal, West Godavari District without following the due process of law either for acquisition or any other legal method. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land under a registered sale deed in 2005 and to being in continuous possession and enjoyment thereafter. The petitioner asserts that her name was entered in the revenue records and respondents 3 and 4 have also issued pattedar passbook and title deed to the petitioner bearing patta No.990. While so, the 4th respondent “ two weeks back” along with employees and the husband of the Sarpanch of the village came and measured the petitioner’s land. On enquiry, the petitioner was told that the respondents are taking steps to handover the land to the third parties under Indiramma Housing Scheme. In the circumstances the petitioner is here seeking appropriate relief. If the respondents including the respondents 3 and 4 seek to trespass in the petitioner’s land without following the due process of law, the petitioner can either file a complaint against the respondents for their prosecution for commission of the cognizable offence of criminal trespass or may even seek appropriate relief before the civil court of competent jurisdiction including by way of injunction. If the petitioner is apprehensive and has reason to believe that the respondents would attempt to dispossess the petitioner and such dispossession is imminent, the petitioner may move the civil court of competent jurisdiction for injunction or other appropriate relief while seek dispensing with the notice under Sec.80 CPC which would have to be considered rationally by the appropriate civil Court. As the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction more proximal to her habitat in West Godavari District, this Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon her grievance in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies including before the civil court of competent jurisdiction. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 25th JUNE 2009 *TSNR