IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20545 of 1998 Between: Smt. Loka Laxminarsamma, W/o. Sri Venkateshwara Rao. R/o. Ammapalem, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsor Mandal, Khammam. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam. 3 Smt. Kalluri Seethadevi, W/o. Late K.Ramachander Rao, R/o. Ammapalem Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam. .....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 pass an order or orders or direction or directions more so in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the orders dated 27/12/1996 in CC.No. 1546/STP/75 and order dated 05/05/1998 directing the redelivery of the land belonging to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the orders of the 2nd respondent passed on 27/12/1996 and 05/05/1998 and direct the respondents or any persons claiming or acting on behalf of them not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the land allotted to the petitioner under ﬁnal patta certiﬁcate No. B/1546/STP/75 dated 20/01/1993 issued by the 1st respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.RAGHUNANDAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.V.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : ORDER: The Petitioner challenges the proceedings in C.C.No.1546/STP/75 dated 27-12-1996 and the consequential order dated 5-5-1998, both passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Khammam. The Petitioner also seeks a further direction to the respondents not to disturb her possession over the land allotted to her under the ﬁnal patta certiﬁcate dated 20-1- 1993 issued by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that she was allotted the subject land, being Ac.1.20 guntas in S.No.799 and 20 guntas in S.No.41 of Ammapalem village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District and the ﬁnal patta certiﬁcate bearing No.C.No.B/1546/STP/75 dated 20-1-1993 was also issued in this regard by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vemsoor Mandal. 3. It appears that the land allotted to the Petitioner formed part of the subject matter of an appeal ﬁled before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Khammam in L.R.A.No.11/1993. By order dated 25-2- 1994, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal seems to have remanded the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal, namely, the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Khammam to consider the matter afresh. Upon such remand, the Land Reforms Tribunal-cum-Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Khammam, passed orders in C.C.No.1546/STP/75 dated 27-12-1996 holding that there was an error in the computation of the landholding of the declarant and in consequence of such ﬁnding, it appears that the order dated 5-5-1998 was passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer directing redelivery of the possession of the land allotted to the Petitioner. These facts are reﬂected in the Counter Aﬃdavit ﬁled by the third respondent herein, viz. Smt. Kalluri Seethadevi, wife of late K.Ramachander Rao, the original declarant in the land reforms proceedings. 4. No Counter-Aﬃdavit has been ﬁled by the respondents 1 and 2 herein. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent, it is noticed that the interim stay granted by this Court in the ﬁrst instance was vacated upon the Vacate Stay Petition ﬁled by the 3rd Respondent. This order was passed as long back as on 18-1-1999. 6. The order dated 27-12-1996 passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer in the capacity of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Khammam is an appealable one under Section 20 of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in spite of the indication given by this Court in its Order dated 18-1- 1999, no steps were taken by the Petitioner to ﬁle an appeal against the order dated 27-12-1996. The learned counsel seeks to assail the correctness of the order dated 27-12-1996 on the ground that the appeal ﬁled by the original declarant, Sri K.Ramachander Rao against the computation of his land holdings and the C.R.P. ﬁled by him before this Court were both dismissed and therefore, the orders passed in L.R.A.No.11 of 1993, at the instance of a purchaser from Sri K.Ramachander Rao, were not tenable in law. It is to be noticed that except for a bald statement to this eﬀect, the learned counsel is not in a position to produce any detailed information with regard to the said proceedings. 7. In any event, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, would not sit in appeal over the order passed by the Tribunal on 27-12-1996. In spite of the clear indication given by this Court that the proper course for the petitioner would be to take recourse to the more appropriate remedy of an appeal notwithstanding the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner failed to take advantage of the advice given. The issues now sought to be raised are not issues which can be adjudicated in a Writ Petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, the 3rd respondent in her Counter-Aﬃdavit stated that the possession of the land was already delivered to her on 17- 5-1998 by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, duly recording the same under a panchanama. 8. In this factual scenario, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the proceedings dated 27-12- 1996 passed by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer before this Court. The consequential order dated 5-5-1998 directing the redelivery of the possession also cannot be assailed by the Petitioner during the subsistence of the order dated 27-12-1996. 9. The Writ Petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of this Writ Petition shall however not preclude the Petitioner from taking recourse to such remedies as are available to her in law against the proceedings impugned in this Writ Petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ Justice P.V.SANJAY KUMAR Dated 3rd November, 2008. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.20545 OF 1998 Dated 3rd November, 2008