THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25045 of 2010 Dated 06th October, 2010 Between: J. Rama Rao and others …Petitioners And The District Collector, Guntur and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. B. Chinnapa Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5: Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments Counsel for respondent No.6: Mr. V.T.M. Prasad Standing Counsel for Endowments The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in restraining the officials of respondent No.3 form tampering with the revenue records relating to the land allegedly belonging to the petitioners admeasuring Acs.1.83 cents in R.S.No.90/6 of Kunchanapalli Village and the notice dated 02.03.2010 of respondent No.4 without enquiring and deciding on the status of respondent No.6 temple, as illegal and arbitrary. Having carefully considered the submissions of Sri B. Chinnapa Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, I am of the opinion that this writ petition is wholly frivolous and vexatious. If the petitioners have legitimate grievance regarding the alleged tampering of the revenue records, they are entitled to avail appropriate legal remedies under Sections 5(5) and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, apartfrom common law remedy of filing a civil suit for declaration of their title. As regards the petitioners’ objection for entertainment of the proceedings under Section 83 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’), it is the pleaded case of the petitioners that they have already filed a counter-affidavit raising objections to the maintainability of the said proceedings. In my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to pursue their objections in the pending proceedings. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and the learned standing counsel representing respondent No.6 temple, submitted that following the constitution of Endowments Tribunal, the proceedings pending before respondent No.4 have already been transferred. It has also come out that the Tribunal is headed by a District Judge. Therefore, I do not find any reason or justification for the petitioners to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing the present writ petition instead of pursuing their remedy before the Tribunal by raising all the legally sustainable objections to the maintainability of the petition filed by respondent No.6. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.31947 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 06th October, 2010 GHN