IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14123 of 2005 Between: Gunname Ramarao S/o.Venkatarao R/o. Salapaka Kajuluru Mandal E.G.District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Mandal Revenue Officer Gollaprolu Mandal E.G.Dist. 2 Revenue Divisional Officer Kakinada E.G.Dist. 3 Smt. Nekkanti Visalakshi W/o.Veera Venkata Narayana Chowdary R/o. Narasanna Nagar Kakinada .....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 a writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to order in ROR/MRI/2/2004, dt.17-5-2005 and consequential Notice No.ROR/MRI/2/2004, dt.18-5-2005 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash both the proceedings as being arbitrary,illegal, violative of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of A.P Rights in Land and Pattedar Passbooks Act, 1971 and consequently suspend the operation of bothe his proceedings and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.U.SUMAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14123 OF 2005 ORDER: 1. Petitioner claims the property under a Will dated 14-1-1995 executed by Sri Veera Raju. He approached the revenue authorities under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act and obtained Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds. Smt. Nekkanti Visalakshi, who is the daughter of late Gunnam Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Durga Prasad filed a petition before the Mandal Revenue Officer on 17-9- 2004 for incorporating her name in the revenue records. The Mandal Revenue Officer referred the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer-2nd Respondent. On the instructions of the 2nd Respondent, the 1st respondent proceeded to pass orders cancelling the pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued in the name of the petitioner and instead issued the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds in favour of 3rd Respondent- Smt. Nekkanti Visalakshi. The order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer-1st respondent is under challenged in this writ petition. 2. Rule nisi came to be issued on 1-7-2005. 3rd Respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada as provided under the provisions of A.P. Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 1st respondent proceeded to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued in the name of the petitioner on the instructions of the 2nd Respondent and therefore, there will not be any useful purpose in filing the appeal before the 2nd respondent. 5. Learned counsel took me to the order impugned in the writ petition to substantiate his contention that the 1st respondent did not exercise his jurisdiction independently and simply followed the instructions of the 2nd respondent and proceeded to cancel the pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds issued in the name of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of an appeal under sub-section 5 of Section 5 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through the order passed by the 1st respondent which is impugned in this writ petition. Though 1st respondent referred the correspondence emanating from the 2nd respondent, but the factual aspects have not been dealt in great detail to arrive conclusions on the respective contentions of the parties. The documents on which both the parties relied upon have been referred, and after considering pleadings placed on record, the 1st respondent proceeded to cancel the Pattadar Pass Books issued in favour of the petitioner. The order passed by the 1st Respondent shows that the 1st respondent considered the material brought on record indicate that he dealt the facts of the case and recorded findings. Since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal as provided under sub-section 5 of Section 5 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, he has to avail the same. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer within 30 days from today as provided under sub-section 5 of Section 5 of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 12th February, 2009. Note: C.C. in three days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 14123 OF 2005 12th February, 2009.