IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 25410 of 2008 Between: K. Aparna, W/o. B. Murali, Thottembebu Village and Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor District. 3 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5 The Tahsildar, Thottembedu Mandal, Chittoor District. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in trying to dispossess the petitioner from his land of Ac.1-94 cents in S.No.237/A of Thottembedu Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District and the action of the 1st responent in not granting interim order in the Revision filed by the petitioner in Appeal No.671/2008 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from his land of Ac.1-94 cents in S.No.237/A of Thottembedu Village, Srikalahasti Mandal, Chittoor District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.N.RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the RespondentS: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.25410 of 2008 ORDER: Petitioner is allegedly in occupation of land admeasuring Acs.1.96 comprised in survey Nos.233/3A and 237/1B situated at Thottembedu Village and Mandal, Chittoor. She states that she developed the land and raised mango plantation. In 2001 or 2002, Tahsildar, ﬁfth respondent herein, statedly granted DKT patta to her. Nonetheless, proposals were initiated for resumption of the land on payment of ex-gratia. In consequence thereof, Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer (RDO), fourth respondent herein, issued show cause notice to petitioner. In the enquiry it was revealed that petitioner and many other DKT pattadars are not residents of Thottembedu Village and that they are members of same family. It was also revealed that they obtained assignments by way of misrepresentation of facts. Therefore, RDO reported the matter to Joint Collector, third respondent herein, opining that the assignments made by Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer (MRO) are irregular. Joint Collector took up the matter and issued show cause notice to petitioner as to why assignment should not be cancelled. After receiving show cause notice petitioner and others appeared before Joint Collector and submitted explanations. After considering the same by common order dated 13.10.2008 Joint Collector ordered cancellation of pattas granted to the petitioner and others. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner along with others preferred an appeal on 14.11.2008 before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), first respondent herein. She also ﬁled an interlocutory application for stay of orders of Joint Collector and the same is pending. The petitioner alleges that even though the appeal as well as stay application are pending before CCLA, ﬁfth respondent and his subordinates are making eﬀorts to dispossess her ignoring the fact of 15 year old mango plantation. Therefore, she ﬁled instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of CCLA not granting interim order as illegal and arbitrary, and further directing respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to dispossess her. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments). As held by the Supreme Court in Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd and others[1] when a person approaching High Court by way of a writ petition has already availed the remedy of appeal/revision, simultaneously he cannot maintain the writ petition. If interlocutory application has not been disposed of by appellate/revisional authority expeditiously, remedy is to approach the same authority and approaching High Court is not proper. Petitioner has already ﬁled appeal before CCLA on 14.11.2008 and therefore, it would be better if said oﬃcer considers the application for stay immediately. Petitioner is given liberty to approach CCLA with a copy of this order. CCLA shall pass appropriate orders immediately without further delay. Learned Assistant Government Pleader undertakes that he will inform this order to CCLA. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 20th November, 2008 Note: Issue CC by tomorrow. (B/o) GHN To 1 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Chittoor District. 3 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 5 The Tahsildar, Thottembedu Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 2CCs to GP FOR REVENUE 7 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} [1] (1995)1 SCC 642