THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26807 of 2010 DT.29.10.2010 Between: Darsha Pedda Pochanna … Petitioner And The District Collector, Adilabad and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.S.Srinivas Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in seeking to confer title on respondent No.7 over the lands admeasuring Acs.4.20 guntas in Survey No.68/44/1 and Acs.2.36 guntas in Survey No.68/52/1 of Khanapur Village, Adilabad District and in deleting the name of the petitioner from the pahani and including the name of respondent No.7, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that against the action of respondent No.3, his client has a right of appeal under Section 5(5) of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) to respondent No.2. He has, however, stated that as respondent No.3 has altered entries in the pahani without notice to his client, he has filed the present writ petition without availing the alternative remedy of appeal. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain a writ petition filed bypassing alternative remedy of appeal. Though the petitioner has raised the issue relating to violation of principles of natural justice, even this aspect can be raised by him before respondent No.2, who being the Officer superior to respondent No.3, will be in a proper position to appreciate his pleas with reference to the revenue record. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition, at this stage. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before respondent No.2. Having regard to the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the patently arbitrary action of respondent No.3, his client may be dispossessed from the lands in question, in order to protect the petitioner’s interest till such time as he approaches respondent No.2 and seek appropriate orders, it is appropriate that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed by any of the respondents, for a period of one month. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34269 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 29.10.2010 Note: Issue CC in one week. (b/o) VGB