THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23832 of 2010 Date:27.09.2010 Between: Mogulla Ram Reddy and others ..... Petitioners AND The District Collector and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Vadla Konda Ravikumar Counsel for Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by respondent No.2 amending the entries in the record of rights in respect of the lands comprised in survey Nos.430, 432 and 433 of Bujilapuram Village, Motkur Mandal, Nalgonda District. I have heard Sri Vadla Konda Ravikumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 has amended the extents of lands shown to have held by the petitioners in the record of rights. The main grievance of the petitioners is that before passing the impugned order, no notices were issued to them. However, in the impugned order, it is stated that explanations of the petitioners submitted in reply to show cause notices dated 19.04.2010 and 03.06.2010 have been considered, but rejected in view of the sale deed dated 14.07.1991 said to have been executed by them in favour of third parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended that this observation made by respondent No.2 is factually incorrect. It is not in dispute that the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is traceable to his power under Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’). Any person, who is aggrieved by an order passed under the said provision, is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 5 (5) of the Act. The petitioners filed this writ petition bypassing the said remedy on the purported ground that no notice was issued to them and no enquiry was held. However, as noted above, the impugned order shows that the petitioners’ explanations were considered. As this aspect falls in the realm of a disputed question of fact, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The appellate authority would be in a better position to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners including the one relating to violation of principles of natural justice, in the light of the finding given by respondent No.2 that he has considered the petitioners’ explanations. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.30501 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th September, 2010 GHN