HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26273 of 2010 Date 25.10.2010 Between: Bathini Papaiah. ..... PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. rep. By District Collector, Warangal District, Warangal and others. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner :Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy Counsel for the Respondents :Assistant Government Pleader of Revenue HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26273 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 06.09.2010 of respondent No.3. I have heard Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and perused the record. Respondent No.4 has approached respondent No.3 with a request to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds in his favour on the plea that the title has not passed on to the petitioners, who purchased the property from his father without his consent. By the impugned order, respondent No.3 while directing removal of the petitioners’ names from the occupant column of pahanies directed issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds in favour respondent No.4. Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that respondent No.3 has no power or jurisdiction to direct removal of the names of the petitioners. At the hearing, it is not disputed that under Section 5(5) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’), any person aggrieved by an order passed by the recording or competent authority in directing alteration of the entries in the revenue record and issuance of pattadar pass books and title deeds, he is entitled to file an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. Even assuming that respondent No.3 has exceeded his jurisdiction in directing deletion of the petitioners’ names from the occupant column, such a direction is amenable to appellate jurisdiction and if the appellate authority is convinced that the direction given by respondent No.3 is illegal or in excess of his jurisdiction, he is entitled to correct the order passed by respondent No.3. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition filed bypassing the effective alternative remedy. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy in order to question the impugned order. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP.No.33548 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:25.10.2010 usd