IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15681 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Pentamma, W/o. Late Pentaiah,D/o. Katikala Balaiah, R/o. Maheshwaram Village and Mandal, R.R.district. 2 Smt. Ramulamma, W/o. Sattaiah,D/o. Katikala Balaiah, R/o. Maheshwaram village, and Mandal, R.R.District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3 Avon Proteins Pvt. Ltd., rep by its Directior, Sri Venkat Subramaniuah J,S/o. Kagadishan, R/o. B/13, Janakikutir, Goregoan West, Bangur Nagar, Mumbai-90. 4 Sri R.Siddeshwar, S/o. R.Sayanna, R/o.H.No.9-75, Siddanthi, Shamshabad Village and Mandal, R.R.District Agreement of Sale cum GPA Holder of Respondent No.3 .....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 to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of MANDAMUS, declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 31.05.2008 is contrary to Sec.19 and Sec.40 of the Act withut providing of any opportunity inspite of the pendency of the Injunction application and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRSYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 15681 of 2008 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. As against the impugned order dated 31.05.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, rejecting the request made by the petitioners for grant of PT rights in respect of the land in question, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and admitted to by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an eﬀective alternative remedy by way of appeal, under Section 90 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, is available to the petitioners, before the Joint Collector concerned. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The petitioners may avail the alternative remedy of appeal available to them under Section 90 of the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 before the Joint Collector concerned as against the impugned rejection order dated 31.05.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent, namely the Tahsildar, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and on such appeal being ﬁled by the petitioners, the Joint Collector concerned shall consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 29.07.2008 Nsr