THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.29295 of 2010 Date : 24-11-2010 Between : C.Narendranath s/o.late Balkishan .. Petitioner And The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Pravin Kumar Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 : Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside order dated 15-5-2010 of respondent No.3 whereby he has directed amendment of entries in record of rights of Madinaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of respondent No.4 with respect to land admeasuring Ac.1-14 guntas in Sy.No.206/1/A. At the hearing, Sri K.Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that against the impugned order his client has a remedy of appeal under Section 5 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act 1971 (for short “the Act”). He has further submitted that as respondent No.2 has committed a procedural illegality in not issuing individual notice to the petitioner and in stead issued notice in Form VIII only, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court without availing the alternative remedy. In my opinion, even in a case of violation of principles of natural justice, the appellate authority can remedy the injustice caused on account of such violation. Though one of the exceptions to the doctrine of alternative remedy is violation of principles of natural justice, nevertheless, in all cases of violation of principles of natural justice, Writ Petitions need not be entertained bye-passing the efficacious remedy of appeal, as a rule. The object behind the doctrine of alternative remedy is to allow the aggrieved parties to avail the statutory remedies as provided by law before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court so that the constitutional courts are not flooded with litigation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to avail the remedy of appeal by raising all the legally sustainable objections including the one relating to failure of respondent No.3 to issue individual notice to the petitioner. If such pleas are raised, I have no doubt in my mind that the appellate authority will consider the same in accordance with law and dispose of the appeal. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.37301/2010 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY.,J Date: 24-11-2010 AM