IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19000 of 2009 Between: Polisetty Balaraju ..... Petitioner AND The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial, Adilabad District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri V. Venkata Mayur The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19000 of 2009 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in entertaining the appeal after a period of 15 years and passing order dated 31.07.2009, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.V.Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri V. Venkata Mayur for respondent No.3. The order impugned in this writ petition is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Collector under Section 9 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that as respondent No.1 has entertained the appeal 15 years after the validation of the sale in favour of his client, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. A perusal of the validation certificate shows that it does not contain any date. It is the case of respondent No.3 that the revenue records show his name consistently till the year 2002-03. Unless the available record reveals the date on which the validation certificate was issued, it is not possible for this Court to hold that there was delay of 15 years in filing an appeal. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for adjudication on merits in view of availability of an effective alternative remedy of revision to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioner to avail the above remedy. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.24281 of 2009 and WVMP.No.3506 of 2009 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.10.2010 ES