Mulgagala Rajeswara Rao, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH **** HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 25340 OF 2017 DATE OF ORDER: 31.07.2017 Between:

Mulgagala Rajeswara Rao ....Petitioner A n d The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi , Amaravathi Guntur District and three others ....Respondents

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 25340 OF 2017 ORDER:

Petitioner claims to be in possession of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in S.No. 58-2 in Vatlur Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. He claims that he purchased the same by way of registered sale deed dated 21.11.1992. He claims that when he entered into the land for carrying out agricultural operations, officials of respondent No. 2Tahsildar's Office asked the petitioner to appear before the Tahsildar, Peddapadu Mandal. Accordingly, he appeared before the Tahsildar, Peddapadu Mandal on 21.7.2017, but without assigning any reasons Tahsildar directed the petitioner not to enter into the land and he stated that he received instructions from authorities.

2.

In the above factual background, petitioner prays to issue a direction declaring the action of the second respondent in interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac. 0.50 cents in S.No. 58-2 in Vatlur Village, Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District and threatening to cancel the petitioner's pattadar pass book and title deed as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. 3.

Except making vague averments of alleged threat meted out to the petitioner by the officials of the second respondent's office and by the second respondent himself, no material is brought before this Court. If really any threat was meted out to him by the officials of Tahsildar's Office, he should have approached the

higher authorities complaining such illegal threat, but without doing so, petitioner directly approached this Court. 4.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition at this stage. The facts do not disclose a valid justification to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. While granting liberty to petitioner to ventilate his grievance against officials of the Tahsildar's Office and Tahsildar himself to the higher authorities, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is need less to observe that as and when such grievance is ventilated before the appropriate authority, the same shall be considered giving do regard to the grievance agitated along with material, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 31.07.2017 KA