Writ petition regarding dispossession of agricultural land without acquisition proceedings was dismissed at admission stage due to the availability of an alternative remedy by way of seeking injunctive relief in a civil court.
Petition dismissed at the stage of admission with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13757 of 2009
Between:
AND
.....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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in trying to dispossess the petitioners from their lands to an extent of Ac. 14.00 each in Sy.No. 78/A and 78/B, situated at Kanpa Mediguda Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District without initiating any land acquisition proceedings and not paying the compensation to the petitioners for acquiring their part of land for the purpose of filling the Tank Bund at the time of Construction of Sathnala Project as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law, without following any procedure of law, unjust, violation of principles of natural justice adn consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitoners from their lands to an extent of Ac. 14.00 each in Sy.No. 78/A and 78/B, situated at Kanpa Mediguda Village, Jainath Mandal, Adilabad District without intiating any land acquisition proceedings and also direct the respondents to pay the compensation for the part of the lands already acquired in the interest and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SURENDER REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following :
ORAL ORDER:
The singular grievance in this writ petition is that despite ownership and continued possession of the petitioners of agricultural land of an extent of Ac.14.00 each in S.No.78/A and 78/B respectively of Kanpa Mediguda village, Jainath Mandal Adilabad District, which is their ancestral property, the respondents are attempting to dispossess them forcibly without following the due process of law. The respondents 1 to 3 are alleged to have indulged in this lawless activity of potential criminal trespass at the instance of the 4th respondent.
Neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State is impleaded as a respondent to this writ petition. The writ petitioners are rest content with impleading the District Collector, Adilabad, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, the Tahsildar, Jainath Mandal and the Assistant Director, Horticulture Department, Adilabad.
In any event, the petitioners have an alternative remedy by way of seeking injunctive relief before a civil court of competent jurisdiction more proximal to their habitat and that in the event of apprehension of imminent threat of dispossession, the petitioners may also seek urgent ex parte orders seeking dispensation of mandatory notice under Section 80 C.P.C.
As the petitioners have an alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to exercise judicial review. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission relegating the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedy. No order as to costs.
GODA RAGHURAM,J 10.7.2009. KRB.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
WRIT PETITION No. 13757 of 2009
Dated: 10.7.2009.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy of civil injunctive relief exists.
Whether the petitioners have the right to be compensated for land allegedly acquired for tank bund construction without acquisition proceedings.
Gopathi Shyam Rao
Gopathi Adellu
The District Collector, Adilabad
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad
The Tahsildar, Jainath Mandal
The Assistant Director, Horticulture Department
GODA RAGHURAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
