IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10943 of 2009 Between: 1 D. Veerabhardappa S/o. Late Sangappa, R/o. H.No.6-3-1154/A/2, Bholashanker Makta, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 2 Sangappa S/o. Eerappa R/o. Kohir Village, Kohir, Sanga Reddy Division, Medak District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Medak District, Medak. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy Division, Medak, Medak District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kohir Mandal, Sangareddy Division, Kohir Village, Sanga Reddy, Medak District. 4 Sangappa S/o. Not known to petitioner R/o. H.No.9-1-3/23, Radhakrishna Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad- 18. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or orders one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in issuance of patta No.2252 under Pattadar Pass Book and title deeds No.4774 in favour D. Laxmamma in respect of the lands in Sy.No.600 and 615 is an extent of Ac.0-28 gts and Ac.2-26 gts respectively situated at Kohir Village and Grampanchayat, Sanga Reddy Division, Medak District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.I.V.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10943 OF 2009 ORDER: It appears that the reason for filing this writ petition is that the first petitioner got issued a notice dated 30.03.2009 to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 claiming that the lands to an extent of Ac.0.28 guntas in Sy.No. 600 and Ac.2.26 guntas in Sy.No.615 of kohir Village are his ancestral property and accordingly sought for cancellation of pattadar pass books and title deeds that were obtained by the mother of fourth respondent, by playing fraud. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken pursuant to the same, by the third respondent. Against such grievance, it appears that the petitioners have an effective alternative remedy of filing appeal before the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer. The writ petition is thus disposed of directing the petitioners to file regular appeal before the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer and workout their remedies, as available under law. On filing such appeal, the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned shall entertain the same, without taking any objection as to limitation and dispose of the same after hearing all the parties concerned, on its own merits. _______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 4th August, 2009 MD/MVB