IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 26289 of 2008 Between: L. Anasuya W/o. Late L. Rajeswar Goud R/o. Flat No. 207, Kanthisikhara Apartments, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar (MRO) Shankarampet Mandal Medak District. 2 A. Rama Goud S/o. Yella Goud R/o. Shankerpet (A), Shanker pet Mandal, Medak Dist. .....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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings No. A/2326/08 dated 04-11-2008 of the 1st respondent and quash the same as it is passed without proper enquiry and giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, which is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.V.RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.26289 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner’s husband allegedly purchased land admeasuring Acs.8.00 in survey No.18A situated at Tirumalapuram Village of Shankarampet Mandal, in Medak District, under registered document No.2252 of 1983. It appears an extent of Acs.1.00 out of total holding was gifted in favour of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam (TTD). On 06.07.2008, petitioner made an application to first respondent to alter record of rights and issue fresh Pattadar Pass Books. She alleges that first respondent did not take any steps. Her request for furnishing Pahanis for the period 1990-2008 was also not responded. Therefore, she filed writ petition being W.P.No.23874 of 2008. The same was disposed of on 03.11.2008 directing first respondent to consider her application. On 04.11.2008, first respondent passed orders in Memo No.A/2326/2008, informing petitioner that there is a rival claim by second respondent (statedly son-in-law of petitioner) based on the bond executed by husband of petitioner, and therefore, the matter has to be settled between them and mutation/alteration of record of rights cannot be effected. Aggrieved by the said memo, present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for petitioner, initially when the matter was heard on 02.12.2008, vehemently contended that the order was issued without any notice, and therefore, is unsustainable. A perusal of impugned memo would show that notice of 45 days is issued before issuing said order. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader was directed to produce relevant file. File bearing No.A/23206/2008 of Shankarampet Mandal has been placed before this Court today. A perusal of the same would show that after receiving representations of petitioner and second respondent, first respondent issued notice and passed impugned memo. In that view of the matter, this Court is of considered opinion that petitioner can agitate all the issues before appellate authority. When there is an effective alternative remedy is available, it is not proper for this Court to entertain writ petition or adjudicating disputed questions of fact. Petitioner is given liberty to prefer an appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer concerned under Section 5(5) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 04.12.2008 pln