IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.Y.SOMAYAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22324 of 2004 Between: Pydi Ramanamma S/o Ramaiah, R/o. Dundigam Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Nellore District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi Village & Mandal, Nellore District ..... RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not implementing her own orders dated 10-09-2004 as arbitrary and un-reasonable and consequently direct the Respondents to implement the orders of the 3rd respondent made in Rc. No.B248/2004 dated 10-09-2004 by issuing the Pattadar Pass book, Title Deeds and entering her name in the revenue records: Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.S.N.SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER: Being aggrieved by the order, dated 10-09-2004 in Rc.No.B-248/2004 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi Village and Mandal, Nellore District-third respondent cancelling the patta granted to the vendor of the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (POT) Act, 1977, after due notice and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, petitioner filed this writ petition. (2) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though third respondent, in the impugned order, clearly held that “original assignee is O.C. by caste, alienee-petitioner is S.C. by caste, she developed the land and cultivated, she has no other land except this purchased land, and hence the land shall be regularized to the alienee”, he erred in passing the impugned order, without regularizing the alienation in favour of the petitioner. (3) The contention of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of all the respondents, is that since petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of filing an appeal, this petition is not maintainable. (4) Since petitioner was informed about the remedy of appeal open to her even in the order impugned in this petition, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is not maintainable and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. (5) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority concerned, the parties are directed to maintain status quo obtaining as on today for a period of 30 (thirty) days from today. No costs ____________________ C.Y. SOMAYAJULU, J Date: 25th April, 2005 Isn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 The District Collector, Nellore, Nellore District 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi Village & Mandal, Nellore District 4 Two CCs to G.P. for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5 Two CD copies