IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 12661 of 2008 Between: Shameem Sultana D/o. Late Md. Abdul Bari R/o. H.No. 16-7-99/299, Azampura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, having his office at Lakdi Ka Pool Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ , order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent as contained in his Letter dt. 22-5-2008 as illegal and void and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to consider my application dt. 6-5-2008 afresh as per law by eschewing the letter dt. 6-5-2008 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD.ZIA-UL-HAQ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue and at their request the matter is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself. It is the case of the petitioner that her father purchased 0.25 guntas of land situated at Medially Village, Ranga Reddy District vide registered sale deed on 18.1.1974 and till his death he was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land and after his death, the petitioner claims to have succeeded to the said land by virtue of a will dated 8.2.1974. On 26.6.2007, she made an application to the 1st respondent seeking mutation of her name in the revenue records and for issuance of pattadar pass book in her favour. On 6.5.2008, it is stated that the petitioner made another application. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the 1st respondent stating that since the land has been converted into non-agricultural plots, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. Hence this writ petition. Admittedly, as against the impugned order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, an appeal lies to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the petitioner, without availing such remedy of appeal, has straight away approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the effective alternative remedy of appeal, and if such an appeal is preferred, the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the same expeditiously in accordance with law. N.V.RAMANA,J Dt.19.6.2008 msv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Tahsildar, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Collector, Ranga Reddy District, having his office at Lakdi Ka Pool Hyderabad. 3 2CCs to Govt.Pleader for Revenue, High Court of A.P. Hyd. 4 2CD copies 1