IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 1310 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 20/09/2007 in WP NO : 9943 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 M.N.P.R. Patrudu, S/o. late M. Papayya Patrudu, R/o. nathayyapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 2 K. Naga Nathan, S/o. late Krishnan, R/o. nathayyapalem Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 The District Collector, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, (Presently Tahsildar) Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 3 G.V.Satyanarayana, S/o. Late Jagannadham, Visakhapatnam. 4 K.Ramaswamy S/o. Bhuloka Visakhapatnam. 5 U.Mariya Ratnam W/o. Late Ram babu Visakhapatnam. 6 M.V.Anantha Lakshmi, (died) R/o. Nathayyapelam Village, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 7 D.V.Vittal Nath, S/o. Late Venkatareddy, Visakhapatnam. 8 K.Brahmananda Chari, S/o. Veera Venkatachari Visakhapatnam. 9 N.Kanakaraju, S/o. Narasimham Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: MR.J.UGRANARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Writ Appeal No. 1310 of 2008 Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) Heard both the counsel, and at their request, the appeal is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. The appellants are the legal heirs of one of the unsuccessful writ petitioners, who along with other writ petitioners sought a writ of mandamus, inter alia, not to dispossess them from the house sites in respect of the extents stated to be in their possession, situated at Nathayyapalem village, Gajuwaka mandal, Visakhapatnam District. The learned single Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, by way of declaration of surplus extent, and as well the vesting of the same with the Government, having become ﬁnal, refused to grant mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the appeal. Having heard both the counsel and having gone through the material on record, it is surprising to note that it is only one of the legal heirs of the writ petitioners who have sought to ﬁle this appeal at the belated hour. However, as already observed by the learned single Judge, the appellants or the writ petitioners have got ample remedies available under law. In view of such availability of the alternative remedies, this Court need not venture to entertain the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed with liberty to the appellants herein to avail the alternative remedies available to them under law. No costs. ___________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J. Date: 29.10.2008 Nsr