IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19323 of 2008 Between: Gonu Lakshmaiah, S/o. Narasimhulu, R/o. Chillamanuchenu Village, Ozili Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Nellore District. 3 The Tahsildar, Ozili Revenue Mandal, Ozili, Nellore district. 4 Smt. Maggam Bujjamma, W/o. Yeeraiah, R/o. chillamanuchenu village, Ozili Mandal, Nellore district. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.JAGADEESWAR Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.4: None appeared. The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in assigning land admeasuring Acs.2.03 cents in Survey No.34/4 in favour of respondent No.4 by way of D-Form patta as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner prayed for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to restore his possession of the said land. Heard Sri G.Jagadeeswar, leaned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. From the averments contained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is evident that the patta, which was granted in favour of the petitioner’s father, was cancelled in the year 1996 and the said land was assigned to respondent No.4. Under Clause 15 (15) of the Board Standing Orders, from every original decision in darkhast cases whether it is passed by the Tahsildar, the Divisional Oﬃcer, or the Collector, one appeal shall be allowed and under paragraph 16, the appellate authority may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed, provided he is satisﬁed that the appellant had good and suﬃcient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. If a person is aggrieved by an order passed in appeal he has a right of revision under Clause 15(18) of the Board Standing Orders. The petitioner, therefore, ought to have ﬁled an appeal against the order of cancellation of patta, which allegedly stood in the name of his father and also against the order by which respondent No.4 was granted assignment. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the above mentioned remedy. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.25196 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 6th September, 2008 vrn