T. Gangaiah and Others vs The Mandal Revenue Officer (Urban) and Others

Immaneni Panduranga Rao, J.—This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent not to dispossess the petitioners and other family members or to prevent them from carrying on brick kilns business in Survey No. 1 of Thambavanigunta village of Tirupathi Mandal. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 (who are impleaded subsequently in the writ petition) that the total extent of Survey No. 1 is Acs.12-01 cents; that respondents 4 to 6 filed O.S.No. 130 of 1984 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge''s Court, Tirupathi against the Government for injunction in respect of an extent of Acs.2-50 cents within specified boundaries; that the said suit was decreed on 3-6-1991 based upon the sale deeds relied upon by respondents 4 to 6 dated 12-8-1949,21-10-1950 and 20-11-1956; that when there was interference by some private parties, respondents 4 to 6 filed O.S.No. 281 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirupathi, on 13-5-1992 and obtained orders of interim injunction and police aid in I.A.Nos. 671/1992 and 672 of 1992, that the writ petitioners herein and some others filed O.S.No. 410 of 1992 in the Court of First Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi and also filed LA. No. 1060 of 1992 for permanent injunction; that the writ petitioners are arrayed as plaintiffs 17 to 19 in the suit and that this writ petition is filed only to circumvent the decree granted by the Sub-Court, Tirupathi in O.S.No. 130 of 1984.

The learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the official respondents who has received instructions, denied the alleged interference by the Mandal Revenue Officer (the first respondent) on 11 -8-1992 or on any other dates; that the extent of Acs.2-50 cents covered by O.S.No. 130 of 1984 is not connected with the writ petition and that the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents 1 and 3 are threatening with their possession is not correct.

Admittedly there is no order initiated under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act or any other provision against the writ petitioners. The allegation of the alleged interference by respondent No. 1 having been denied by the learned Government Pleader, it follows that the comment made by the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6 that this writ petition is filed in order to circumvent the decree granted by the Civil Court is correct. The petitioners who have already filed O.S.No. 410 of 1992 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Tirupathi, alongwith some other plaintiffs can pursue the civil remedy and on establishing their title to and possession of the suit property, obtain order of injunction to safeguard their possession. It is not open to the petitioners to rush to this court and obtain some interim direction only with the intention of circumventing the orders of injunction passed by the Civil Court.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 6 that the Civil Court has passed the order of interim injunction and also granted police aid in LA. Nos. 671 of 1992 and 672 of 1992 in O.S.No. 281 of 1992. If the petitioners are aggrieved, they have to take steps to get that interim injunction vacated in that suit.

The extraordinary remedy sought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy. However, it is open to the petitioners to pursue their remedies in the suits which are said to be pending in the civil Courts. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.