IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14993 of 2009 Between: Maramreddy Muni Sundara Rami Reddy, S/o.Krishna Reddy, R/o. Gunapatipalem Village, Gunapadu Post, Chittamuru Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore District SPSR Nellore. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District. 3 The Tahsildar, Chittamur Manal, SPSR Nellore District. 4 Maramreddy Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Munisundara Rami Reddy, R/o. Gunapatipalem Village, Gunapadu Post, Chittamuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRit of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities inot taking any steps for cancellation of the pattedar pass books and title deeds issued in favour of the 4th respondent who obtained the same by fraudulent means, inspite of repeated visits and legal notice dt. 12-5-2009 followed by written representation 18-6-2009, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to enquire into the matter and to cancel the pattedar pass book and title deeds issued in favour of the 4th respondent Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NAMAVARAPU RAJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.14993 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the issue of pattedar passbook and title deed to the 4th respondent in respect of a property, which the petitioner claims to be his. In respect of such a grievance, the petitioner has a statutory appellate remedy under Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act,1971 ( for short “the Act”). Instead of pursing the appellate remedy, the petitioner appears to have addressed a representation to the 3rd respondent and thereafter to the 2nd respondent followed by a legal notice to the 2nd respondent. None of these measures constitute pursuit of the statutory appellate remedy. Recognizing this infirmity in the litigative strategy, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition to enable the petitioner to pursue the appropriate appellate remedy under the provisions of the Act. Granting liberty as sought the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J 27th JULY 2009 *TSNR