IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 10874 of 2001 Between: Y.Radhakrishna Reddy S/o Mal Reddy R/o B.Kanyakapuram Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Secretary Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Joint Collector Collectorate, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 3 Mandal Revenue Officer, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Vedurukuppam Village, Chittoor District. 4 N.Pujaraiah S/o Muddaiah, Major, B.Kanyakapuram Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, or order or direction declaring that the cancellation of DKT Patta (Patta No. DKT Patta 3/4/85 dt: 7.8.1985 ) in favour of Petitioner in respect of extent of land admeasuring Ac.4.20 Cents in Sy.No.339/2 in Pathagunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, vide 2nd respondent's order No.Roc (B2) 3705/93 dt: 5.12.1994 and upholding the said order by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad vide Proceedings No. BCW3/493/95 dt: 17.8.2000, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and as unsustainable and consequently set aside the order bearing No Roc (B2) 3705/92 dt: 5.12.94 of 2nd Respondent and also the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, A.P. Hyderabad proceedings No.BCW4/493/1994, dt: 17.8.2000 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.VISWANATHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the cancellation of DKT Patta bearing No.3/4/85 dated 7.8.1985 granted to the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.20 cents in Sy. No.339/2, Pathagunta village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District by order of the Joint Collector, Chittoor, in proceedings No. Roc (B2) 3705/93 dated 5.12.1994 which was conﬁrmed by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in appeal, by order dated 17.08.2000 in proceedings No. BCW3/493/95. The case of the petitioner is that he has been in possession of the subject land for over twenty years and had incurred heavy expenditure to bring the same to a cultivable position. He was granted DKT patta on 7.8.1985. It is alleged that basing upon the complaint made by one Mr. N.Pujaraiah, 4 th respondent herein, steps were initiated by the respondent authorities to cancel the DKT patta granted to him. It is stated that a show cause notice was issued in this regard by the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Chittoor. The same was questioned by the petitioner before the Joint Collector, Chittoor, who cancelled the said patta. It is stated that the said order is passed overlooking the fact that the petitioner’s father-in-law had given land to the petitioner’s two wives and that the same could not be taken to be the land belonging to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor, the petitioner ﬁled an appeal before the Commissioner, Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who conﬁrmed the order under appeal without applying his mind. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition was filed. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District, stating to the eﬀect that the petitioner was ineligible for assignment, as he was a wealthy pattedar and ﬁnancially sound at the time of assignment. It is stated that the assignment was cancelled as it was based on a mistake of fact. In the light of the disputed facts which arise from the pleadings stated supra, it is clear that the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are not amenable to judicial review in a writ petition ﬁled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noticed, under Board Standing Order 15 paragraph 18, the petitioner is aﬀorded an alternative remedy of preferring a revision to the Government against the order of the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Instead of availing the alternative remedy, which is more suitable and comprehensive, for resolving the factual issues sought to be raised by the petitioner, he approached this court by way of the present writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available to him under the Board Standing Order 15, within a period of three months from today. The respondents shall not take any action pursuant to the order impugned in the writ petition, for a period of three months from today. _____________________ Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar October 24, 2008 Copy within a week. //BO// MAS