THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22699 of 2010 Date:13.09.2010 Between: Tirupathi Raghunath and others. ..... Petitioners AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G. Prabhakar Sarma Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.5: --. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not considering the petitioners’ representations dated 10.10.2008 and 13.10.2008 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners averred that their father was granted a DKT patta in the year 1981 in respect of an extent of Ac.0.81 cents and Acs.1.41 cents of land in survey Nos.392/4 and 392/8 respectively of Rachapalli Village, Ramapuram Mandal, Kadapa District; that the original assignee has died later, that respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.43 of 2008 before the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Lakkireddypalle, Kadapa District, for perpetual injunction against the petitioners; that an interim injunction was granted in favour of respondent No.5 against which the petitioners have filed an appeal - C.M.A.No.5 of 2010 which was also dismissed. On coming to know that a DKT patta was granted in favour of respondent No.5 on 25.05.2002, the petitioners claimed to have made the abovementioned representations for cancellation of said DKT patta. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representations are not being disposed of. In my opinion, the petitioners have not availed the proper remedy. Under the Board Standing Orders, every decision pertaining to grant of assignment is amenable for being questioned in an appeal. If the petitioners felt that grant of assignment in favour of respondent No.5 by respondent No.4 is illegal, there was no reason why they could not file an appeal before respondent No.3. Instead of availing such remedy, they stated to have made representations to respondent Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.28954 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th September, 2010 GHN