THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.NO.661 of 2010 13-09-2010 BETWEEN; V.G.K.Yachendra son of VSK Yachendra ...Appellant vs. Koturu Hari Babu and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU W.A.NO.661 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The appeal is by the 5th respondent in W.P.No.3221 of 2010 agains the order dated 13-08-2010 in WPMP No.4239 of 2010 and WVM Nos.1891 and 2203 of 2010. The 5th respondent applied to the Joint Collector-cum-Settlemen Officer, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District for grant of a Ryotwari Patta i respect of Ac.23.00 of land in the District, claiming entitlement under th provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition an Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 ( for short “the Act”). By the orde dated 01-03-2009, the Settlement Officer granted Ryotwari Patta in favou of the appellant overruling the objections of the writ petitioners/non- officia respondents herein and by the same order he also declared invalid order of assignment of land granted in favour of the writ petitioners by th Government. Aggrieved by the order dated 01-03-2009 of the Settlemen Officer some of the aggrieved cultivators filed the writ petition while other preferred appeals to the Estates Abolition Tribunal under Section 15(2) o the Act. The writ petitioners are said to have filed applications fo impleading themselves in the appeals preferred to the Estates Abolitio Tribunal by some of the similarly affected persons, with a view to suppo the appellants before the Estates Abolition Tribunal. Initially an ex parte order of suspension of the order of the Settlemen Officer dated 01-03-2010 was granted by this Court on 16-03-2010. Th 5th respondent’s application for vacating the interim order was rejected b the order under appeal and the learned single Judge has made the interim order of suspension absolute whereagainst this appeal is filed. Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by S S.Srinivas Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that th writ petition ought not to have been entertained by this Court in view of th availability of an alternative, statutory appellate remedy to the Estate Abolition Tribunal under Section 15(2) of the Act and in particular since th writ petitioners have also impleaded themselves in the appeals preferre against the order of the Settlement Officer before the Tribunal. In this appeal, preferred against the order passed at the interlocutor stage, we are not inclined to adjudicate whether the writ petition ought t have been entertained in view of the availability of an alternative appellat remedy for the writ petitioners. That is a matter which falls within th adjudicatory matrix in the writ petition. We do not discern any serious erro in the exercise of discretion apparent from the order under appea warranting appellate reference and what is merely an interim arrangemen pending the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the substantive writ petition is pending we are not inclined to make any pronouncement on the merits of th maintainability of the writ petition or on the merits of the case of th appellant/5th respondent in the writ petition vis-à-vis the validity of th order of the Settlement Officer dated 01-03-2009.We are not inclined t interfere in the writ appeal for the above reasons. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly at the stage of admission. N order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ___________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010. TSNR