IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 23859 of 2008 Between: Mohd. Khaja Rafeequddin S/o.late Hameeduddin alias Chandu Miya R/o.H.No.7-4-211, Kashmirgadda, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar-A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahsildar, Revenue Mandal Ramagundam District Karimnagar-A.P. 2 Mohd. Jamaluddin S/o.Shaik Hyder R/o.H.No.2-7-458, Mukarrampura, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar-A.P. .....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 writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction declaring the impugned order in Memo No.B/181/08 dt. 8.10.2008 issued by the respondent No.1 illegal, null and void and violative of principles of natural justice and be set aside in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MOHD. GHULAM HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.20.10 guntas in Sy.No.600, an extent of Ac.1.05 guntas in Sy.No.604/A and an extent of Ac.4.38 guntas in Sy.No.629/B situated at Jangaon Village, Sivar Revenue Mandal, Ramagundam, Karimnagar District. He ﬁled this writ petitions questioning the order passed by the Tahsildar, Revenue Mandal, Ramagundam, the 1st respondent herein eﬀecting changes in the entries in the revenue record in respect of the land in Sy.No.628. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is not preceded by any notice. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent – Tahsildar submits that as against the impugned order, the petitioner has an eﬀective alternative remedy of ﬁling an appeal under Section 5(5) of the Record of Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) and without availing that remedy, the petitioner has straight away approached this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Admittedly, as against the impugned orders, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 5(5) of the Act as submitted by the learned Government Pleader. That apart, the contention of the petitioner that no notice was, in fact, served on him before issuing the impugned order, which fact has been denied by the learned Government Pleader, has to be examined only after going through the records of the revenue department and if necessary by examining the parties. Therefore, instead of this Court going into the merits of the matter, it would be more appropriate if the petitioner avails the remedy of appeal available to him under the statute. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to ﬁle an appeal against the impugned orders under Section 5(5)of the Act and on such appeal being ﬁled, the appellate authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously, after issuing notice to the affected parties. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.03.11.2008 Note: Furnish CC in two days (B/o) msv