THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 11588 of 2008 Dated: 28.09.2010 Between: Bathula Venkata Nageswara Rao, Prakasam District. … Petitioner And Government of A.P., Rep., by its Secretary, Hyderabad and 5 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11588 of 2008 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be in possession of plot Nos.37-A and 38-A situated in Sy.No.3 of Dharivarithota village, Ongole, Prakasam District under D.K. patta No.117/99 said to have been granted by the Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal. It is alleged that respondents 5 and 6 herein had managed to obtain patta certificate in their favour in respect of the very same plots on 18.04.2005 by suppressing the true facts. However, by order dated 27.10.2005, passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ongole, the pattas in favour of respondents 5 and 6 were cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 5 and 6 preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. The said appeal was allowed by order dated 28.04.2006. Contending that the said order was arbitrary and illegal, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the 2nd respondent-Joint Collector, which was dismissed by proceedings dated 30.04.2008. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 5 and 6. Whereas the writ petitioner claims that he was granted D.K. patta in the year 1999, it is contended by the respondents 5 and 6 that the plots in question were allotted to them vide proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer vide D.K. patta No.78/1414 dated 18.04.2005. It is also pleaded that though the said patta was cancelled by proceedings dated 27.10.2008 on the ground that they failed to construct the house within the stipulated time, their appeals were allowed by the 3rd respondent and the cancellation order was set aside. The order of the 3rd respondent was also upheld by the 2nd respondent while dismissing the revision petition preferred by the writ petitioner. It is contended that the concurrent findings of facts recorded by respondents 2 and 3 do not warrant any interference and at any rate, as a further remedy of appeal is available before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, without exhausting the said alternative remedy, the present writ petition cannot be maintainable. It is also contended by the respondents 5 and 6 that the petitioner was never in possession of the plots in question and by virtue of the pattas granted in their favour vide D.K.patta No.78/1414 dated 18.04.2005 they have been continuing in possession and enjoyment. The findings recorded by the respondents 2 and 3 are in favour of the respondents 5 and 6. Be that as it may, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent itself shows that an appeal shall lie against the said order before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. In the circumstances, the petitioner ought to have availed the alternative remedy of appeal. Without exhausting such an alternative remedy, the present writ petition cannot be maintained. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on rival claims made by the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration within a period of four weeks from today. If any such appeal is preferred within the time fixed above, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law after due notice to both the parties. Status quo obtaining as on today as to the possession of the land in question shall be maintained for a period of eight weeks from today. No costs. ​ ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.09.2010 KLP