THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12898 of 2010 June 09, 2010 Between: M.Venkata Raju, S/o.late M.Narayanaraju And another … Petitioners And The Tahsildar, Vijayapuram Mandal, Chittoor District And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12898 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are allegedly owners of two pieces of land admeasuring Acs.2.82 and Acs.6.99 comprised in survey No.147 situated at Sriharipuram Village of Vijayapuram Mandal in Chittoor District. On 18.1.2010, first respondent initiated action under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (the Act) and issued notice under Section 7 of the Act. Assailing the same, petitioners filed two writ petitions being W.P. Nos.1954 and 1955 of 2010. This Court disposed of the same on 03.2.2010 observing that till final orders are passed considering the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioners, they shall not be dispossessed. Petitioners allege that the orders were communicated by their lawyer on 11.3.2010 but even before the explanation could be submitted, Tahsildar issued orders/notice under Section 6 of the Act directing eviction alleging that the petitioners encroached two pieces of the land referred herein above. Petitioners then approached the first respondent seeking review of the order/notice issued under Section 6 of the Act. The first respondent issued endorsement dated 18.3.2010 informing that the eviction process was completed on 08.3.2010, that he is not vested with the power of review and that an appeal is provided under Section 10(1)(a) of the Act to the District Collector. Therefore they preferred appeal before the District Collector along with stay petition. As no orders are passed in the appeal and in the meanwhile Tahsildar issued a press release on 05.6.2010 proposing to auction usufruct of mango trees in survey No.147 on 14.6.2010, present writ petition is filed. This Court heard the counsel for petitioners and the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Andhra Area). Petitioners have not filed copies of grounds of appeal or stay petition before this Court except making an averment in the affidavit that they preferred appeal to the District Collector as advised by the Tahsildar. Section 10(1)(a) of the Act provides for an appeal to the Collector against the order of Tahsildar and further appeal lies to the District Collector against the orders of the officer exercising the powers of the Collector. According to Section 1-A(a) of the Act, “Collector” means any officer incharge of a revenue division and includes a Deputy Collector, a Sub-Collector and an Assistant Collector. There are circular orders issued by the Revenue department that appeal under Section 10 of the Act is to be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector is vested with the power of revision. Rightly or wrongly petitioners preferred appeal to the District Collector and therefore when the appeal is pending it is not proper for this Court to stay the proceedings especially when the endorsement dated 18.3.2010 is to the effect that eviction process was completed on 08.3.2010. Further it is well settled that when the statutory appeal provided by an enactment is availed by the person, he/she cannot be permitted to pursue his remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (see Bombay Region Development Authority v Gokul Patel[1]). As the petitioners have already availed remedy of appeal, they may approach the appropriate authority and seek orders. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) June 09, 2010 YS [1] (1995) 1 SCC 642