IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14053 of 2009 Between: M/s. Naga Hills Welfare Association I & II, (Regd. No. 1349 & 1348/2004), 6-3-1100/5, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500 082, Rep. by its President, Dr. N. Harinath. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Executive Engineer (R&B), Serilingampally Division, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy 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 to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the private land of themembers of the Petitioners Association abutting either side of Khajaguda-Hyderabad Road in S.No. 66/2 of Raidurg Navkhalsa Village and 66/3 of RaidurgPanmaqta Villages Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.14053 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The singular grievance in this writ petition is unlawful interference by the respondents in particular the respondents 2 and 3 with the possession of the members of the petitioner-association of the extent of Ac.50.00 in Sy.Nos.66/2 of Raidurg Navkhalsa village and 66/3 of Raidurg Panmaqta village of Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioner-association, the title of the members of the petitioner-association to the property in question has been confirmed by the judgment of this Court dated.29-09-2008 in A.S.Nos.36 and 37 of 2006 to which the State of Andha Pradesh is a party. Despite a judicial declaration of their right, title and consequent possession of property, the respondents 2 and 3, without lawful authority and without following the due process of law are interfering with possession, is the grievance projected in this writ petition. In respect of such a grievance, the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction by seeking injunctive relief. In case the petitioner or its members apprehend imminent injury, may seek urgent ad interim injunctive relief if needed by seeking dispensing with the requirement of issuance of a notice under Section 80 CPC. As the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction, this court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission with liberty preserved in the petitioners to pursue appropriate alternative remedy. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 15th JULY 2009 Note: Issue CC as Soon as possible (B/O) *TSNR