IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2420 of 2009 Between: Kantu Yalamandamma W/o. Kanakaiah R/o. Near N.S.P. Quamp (V) & M Huzur Nagar, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dist. Collector Nalgonda Dist. at Nalgonda. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer Miryalguda Division at Miryalguda, Nalgonda Dist. 3 The Tahsildar / M.R.O. Huzur Nagar Mandal At Huzur Nagar, Nalgonda Dist. 4 Mulkapally Naga Raju S/o. Late Mattaiah R/o. H.No.15-364, Huzur Nagar V & M, Presently Residing at Hanumanpuram Village, Bhuvangairi Mandal, Nalgonda Dist. ....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 an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus direct the respondents to issue the pattadar pass books in favour of the petitioner while canceling the pass books issued to the 4th respondent for the extent of 0-20 Gts. in Sy.No. 109 /EE situated at Huzur Nagar Village & Mandal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.LNARASIMHA RAO & ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 2420 of 2009 Order: The petitioner complains that though she is the actual owner of 0-20 guntas of land in Survey No.109/EE of Huzurnagar village and Mandal, the Tahsildar, Huzurnagar Mandal, the third respondent herein issued pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of the fourth respondent. She claims to have made a representation to the District Collector, the first respondent herein with a prayer to ensure that the pattadar passbook issued to the fourth respondent is cancelled and that she be given a pattadar passbook for that land. The petitioner complains that no action has been taken on her representation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. Acting on the representation made by the petitioner, the first respondent called for remarks of the third respondent. The fact, however, remains that in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the issuance of pattadar passbook in favour of the fourth respondent, she has to file an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the second respondent herein. If she does not get relief in the appeal, further remedy is provided to the Joint Collector by way of revision under Section 9 of the Act. There is hardly anything, which the first respondent can do, when a series of remedies are provided under the Act and Rules. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appeal before the second respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer pointing out her grievance. The second respondent- Revenue Divisional Officer shall deal with the matter on its own merits as and when the appeal is preferred. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Date: 11.02.2009 Nsr