THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 23320 OF 2022

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in taking action against the unofficial respondents for forging the signatures of the petitioner, though the petitioner has not executed any agreement of sale or Sadabainama, in respect of petitioner’s open site House No.R-24 (H.No.2-24), admeasuring 70.00 sq. yards, situated at Katkur Village, Bachannapeta Mandal, Jangaon District, in spite of written complaint dated 30.03.2020, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Sri Shaik Jilani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, which he was succeeded from his forefathers. The subject property belongs to all the family members including the petitioner’s sisters and brother. While so, respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are the sons of petitioner’s brother, forged the signature of the petitioner in respect of subject property and they are making illegal construction taking undue advantage of petitioner’s vacant site. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13179 of 2022 seeking action against the respondent police in not taking action on the complaint given by him on

24.12.2021. On 30.03.2022 the petitioner made a complaint to the respondent police bringing to their notice that respondent Nos.4 and 5 have forged his signature and created agreement or Sadabainama, but no tangible action is forthcoming from them. It is submitted that the duty of the police officer is to register a case and carry out proper investigation into the matter and ascertain the cause behind the complaint. Learned counsel submits that the inaction of the respondent police is highly arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing a Writ Petition.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home Sri S. Rama Mohana Rao submits that he will get instructions in this matter and file a detailed counter.

4. Though there are no fetters in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whenever a person complains of violation of his fundamental right or statutory right, one of the self imposed restraint is when there is statutorily engrafted adequate and efficacious alternative remedy available to such person to redress his grievance the court do not entertain the writ petition but relegate the party to avail such remedy before invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

Bhimidipati Annapoorna Bhavani v. Land Acquisition Officer, Yeluru Reservoir Project, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, A.P. and others, [2005(3) ALD 233(LB)]

5. The Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [AIR 1964 SC 1419] , Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” (emphasis supplied)

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal

6. Despite wide powers conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self