IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 19034 of 2008 Between: Sharanappa S/o.Late Siddappa R/o.H.No.1-2/R/o.Kodangal Proper & Mandal District Mahabubnagar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District Mahabubnagar 2 The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue office, Mandal Kodangal District Mahabubnagar 3 The Executive Officer, Gram panchayat,Kodangal Proper & Mandal, District Mahabubnagar .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to pass an order or writ particularly writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 herein in passing the impugned orders in File No.A/912/2008 dated 20.8.2008 received by the petitioner on 25.8.2008 directing the petitioner to remove his Construction of premises No.1-2 at Kodangal Town, Near APSRTC Bus Stand Kodangal Proper and Mandal, District Mahabubnagar in default directing the respondent No.3 to remove the same as arbitrary, illegal, and against the principles of rules of law and natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.BAJRANG SINGH THAKUR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.19034 of 2008 ORDER: As against the order, dated 20.08.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent, namely, the Tahsildar, Kodangal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, it is represented by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that the petitioner has got an eﬀective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 10 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) before the Collector, and that the petitioner, without availing such remedy, has approached this Court. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the petitioner has already been evicted from the land in question and the vacant possession thereof was handed over to the A.P.S.R.T.C. 2. Since the petitioner has got an eﬀective alternative remedy by way of appeal, he is at liberty to avail the said remedy of appeal as available to him under Section 10 of the Act against the impugned order before the Collector. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is still in possession of the land in question, and has not been evicted therefrom, as contended by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. If the petitioner has not been evicted from the land in question, he shall be continued in possession, till the appeal to be preferred by the petitioner, is disposed of by the Collector. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 02.09.2008 ksr/ v v