IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13515 of 2008 Between: 1 Nanavath Bikshapathi W/o. Late Nanavath Sevla R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Nanavath Namu S?o. Gopia R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Ram Singh S/o. Hiraman R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4 Samiya S/o. Nanavath Venktiya R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5 G. Bhav Singh S/o. Kotia R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6 Goglath Kishna S/o. Kotia R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 7 G. Madan Singh S/o. Hiraman R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 8 Ravi S/o. Pullaiah R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 9 V. Pikla S/o. V. Lakshma R/o. Annojiguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, At Collectorate Complex, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Grade Deputy Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ranga Reddy East Division, Mojamzahi Market, Hyderabad. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ or writs Order or Direction more in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No. B/1131/2007 dt. -05-2008 as illegal, without authority of law and jurisdiction as also in violation of Fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to resume the lands to the petitioners and pass such order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.I.V.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.13515 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioners claim to be the assignees of the lands in question. The petitioners state that when the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, tried to evict them from the lands in question, they made a representation dated 28.11.2005 to the first respondent-Collector and the first respondent directed the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to look into the matter who in turn directed the third respondent to conduct discreet enquiry in respect of the lands in question and submit a detailed report. They further state that when the third respondent without conducting any enquiry again tried to evict them from the lands in question, they filed a writ petition No.6721 of 2006 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the petitioners to file appeal before the second respondent. In pursuance of the said orders, they filed appeal before the second respondent, which was dismissed on 29.08.2006. Against the said orders, they again approached this Court and filed writ petition No.18581 of 2006 which was allowed by an order dated 15.09.2006 and set aside the orders dated 29.08.2006 of the second respondent and remitted the matter to him for passing appropriate orders. The second respondent after hearing the counsel for the petitioners remanded the matter to the third respondent. The case of the petitioners is that the third respondent after conducting the enquiry passed the present impugned orders dated 04.05.2008 refusing to restore the lands in question to the petitioners and holding that the resumption orders dated 25.05.2005 earlier passed by him still prevails and stands good in law. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. When the matter is taken up for admission today, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that as against the impugned orders passed by the third respondent-Tahsildar, an effective remedy of appeal is available before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer and without availing the said remedy the petitioners have directly approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners agreed to avail the remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. In view of the agreed stand taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioners are directed to avail the alternative remedy of appeal available to them before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer as against the orders dated 04.05.2008 passed by the third respondent-Tahsildar and on filing such appeal, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 27.06.2008 VGSR