IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH 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.1064 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16.11.2007 in W.P.NO.4534 OF 1998 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: M.Srinivasulu REddy Legal representative of Smt.M.Kasthuramma, R/o.Timmareddyvagu, Pellakur village, Chittamuru Mandal, Nellore District. ...APPELLANT AND 1 M.Krishnaiah S/o.late M.Nallaiah, R/o.Timmareddyvagu, Pellakur Village, Chittamuru Mandal, Nellore District. 2 Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittamuru Mandal, Chittamuru, Nellore District. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.A.CHARI The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1064 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard both the sides. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal. The appellant is the third respondent in the Writ Petition ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent, where he sought a claim under Section 11 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (“the Act” for brevity) as per the order the order dated 30.09.1997 as illegal. After contest, having found that the said proceedings are without any notice to the ﬁrst respondent and without conducting any enquiry as provided under the Act, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Joint Collector to conduct an enquiry after due notice to the writ petitioner as well the present appellant and after giving them a reasonable opportunity to put forth their version and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. Hence, the appeal. On hearing on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that any proceedings under the Act are substantial and either parties can claim proprietary rights and right of title and necessarily, the same has to be taken up for consideration and decided by the authority constituted under the legislation. Further, review and revision are also provided under the Act. In view of the said remedies available, which are more eﬃcacious and suﬃciently alternative, it is not necessary to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to ﬁle an appeal rather then approaching this Court. Having regard to the ﬁndings given by the learned Single Judge especially as to the absence of notice, there is no bar to approach this Court. However, we are conscious of the well settled principle that since appropriate remedies are available under the legislation, where all such pleas can be gone into and appropriate leaves can be granted, this Court declines to entertain any such discretion. In view of the same, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside giving liberty to ﬁle an appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that it is open for the Writ Petitioner to make appropriate application seeking stay or any interim direction as may be required. Till the appeal is ﬁled and orders are passed in the said application, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 18th September 2008 RRB