IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 26779 of 2014 BETWEEN Mehrunissa Begum and another.
AND ... PETITIONERS Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners claim to be owners of non-agricultural land admeasuring about Ac.1.00 cents in survey No.671/1 of Pedana village and the petitioners claim the aforesaid land on the basis of a registered document No.1174/14 dated 30.06.2014. It appears that petitioners had already filed a civil suit viz., O.S.No.174 of 2014, before the Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam and obtained interim injunction against third parties, who are trying to interfere.
3. The petitioners’ further state that subsequently the third parties have high handedly trespassed into the land regarding which they made a complaint before the Tahsildar on 25.08.2014 requiring him to take action against the illegal trespass and an acknowledgement was given on the online petition No.112143 by the second respondent.
The present writ petition is, however, filed alleging inaction on the part of the Tahsildar.
4. I am unable to see what remedy can be granted to the petitioners by the Tahsildar even if he is directed to take action on the petitioners’ complaint. If the petitioners claim illegal interference or dispossession, it is for the petitioners to approach a competent civil court and the Tahsidlar cannot have any jurisdiction in such matters. Petitioners have already approached civil court by filing the suit, referred to above, and it is open for the petitioners to avail such further remedies as are available to protect their civil rights.
Writ petition is, therefore, clearly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 11, 2014 LMV