IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1116 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 2-9-2008 in WP NO : 19034 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sharanappa S/o.Late Siddappa R/o.H.No.1-2/R/o.Kodangal Proper & Mandal District Mahabubnagar ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District Mahabubnagar 2 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue office, Mandal Kodangal District Mahabubnagar 3 The Executive Officer, Gram panchayat,Kodangal Proper & Mandal, District Mahabubnagar .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1116 OF 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) The appellant is the unsuccessful petitioner who ﬁled the writ petition, inter alia, seeking for Mandamus, assailing the proceedings dated 20-08-2008 whereby the petitioner was asked to vacate the property in his possession. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is to the eﬀect that the said proceedings dated 20-08-2008 was passed pursuant to the notice issued on 8-8-2008 under Section 7 of the Act, whereunder the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the damages ascertained should not be recovered. Subsequently, the petitioner ﬁled comprehensive explanation on 16.8.2008. However, the impugned orders came to be passed, whereby the petitioner was sought to be evicted, which is contrary to the very notice issued and also the proceedings initiated. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in view of the fact that the petitioner has alternative remedy of regular appeal. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader, we are of the opinion that, prima facie, the entire proceedings which culminated into the ﬁnal orders dated 20.8.2008 are without jurisdiction and unsustainable mainly, because the initiation of the proceedings was only for fixation of damages and recovery thereof, as per the notice dated 8-8- 2008 and not for eviction of the petitioner. No notice as contemplated was issued to the appellant herein as to why he should not be evicted. For the aforesaid proceedings dated 8-8-2008, the appellant has already ﬁled explanation on 16-8-2008. 5. Be that as it may, the authorities passed the impugned orders, dated 20-8- 2008, whereby the petitioner is sought to be evicted, which is unsustainable. On the mere fact that alternative remedy of regular appeal is available, it would not itself deter this court in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. When such orders have been passed quite contrary to very initiation of the proceedings and also in the teeth of the provisions of Act, as admittedly, there was no show cause notice for evicting the appellant, the W.A. has to be allowed. The W.A. is accordingly allowed and the writ petition ﬁled by the appellant is also allowed and the impugned proceedings dated 20-8-2008 are set- aside. ​ ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 19-09-2008 Stp ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRK}