THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.37975 of 2014 Dated 19th December, 2014 Between:
M/s.Guntu Malleswaraswami Rice & Oil Mill …Petitioner And State of Telangana, rep.by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the grievance that the respondents have been interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the property.
Except the ipsi dixit of the petitioner, no prima facie material is produced to show that any of the respondents have been interfering with the petitioner’s possession. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to why the petitioner has not put the respondents on notice requiring them not to interfere with its possession before filing this writ petition.
The law is well settled that before seeking a writ of Mandamus, the aggrieved party is required to issue notice to the State or its instrumentalities demanding justice (see Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury v. State of West Bengal and Amrit Lal v. Collector, Central Excise (Revenue)).
As the petitioner has not followed this procedure, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage. The petitioner is however left free to issue notice to the respondents and if the respondents continue to interfere with the petitioner’s possession, it is left free to avail appropriate legal remedy thereafter.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.47494 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th December, 2014
VGB