IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25598 of 2010 Between: Durgesh Singh ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Hyderabad District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Srinivas Choudary Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25598 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside order dated 24.09.2010 issued by respondent No.2. I have heard Sri Srinivas Choudary, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. I have also perused the record. This case has a chequered career. On the allegation that the land classified as graveyard is in unauthorized occupation of private persons, Writ Petition No.7540 of 1999 was filed in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.12.2001 directing respondent No.1 and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to take necessary steps to construct a permanent compound wall in respect of the land, which is not in occupation of encroachers and to initiate appropriate action for eviction of the encroachers. Similar directions were issued by the Hon’ble Lokayukta by way of an interim order dated 02.03.2010 on a complaint made by one R.Dasarath Singh. Purporting to carryout these directions, respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, “the Act”). After identifying the alleged encroachers, show cause notices were stated to have been issued and after considering the objections of a person by name Ramchander Singh, who was the only person who submitted his explanation, respondent No.2 passed the impugned order directing eviction of as many as 153 persons including the petitioner from the land, which is stated to be a graveyard. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client has not received any notice and that therefore the impugned order suffers from non-observance of principles of natural justice. However, it is stated in the impugned order that though notices were issued, 152 encroachers have not filed their explanations. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain writ petitions filed bypassing effective alternative remedy. It is not in dispute that under Section 10 the Act, the petitioner has a right of appeal to question the impugned order of eviction. It is not possible for this Court to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as no notice was served on his client, he is entitled to ignore the availability of remedy of appeal and file the present writ petition. In the face of the finding contained in the impugned order that notices were issued to all the alleged encroachers, the plea of the petitioner that no such notice was issued, cannot be straight away accepted. The petitioner is entitled to raise this issue before the appellate authority, which will be in a better position to appreciate this disputed question of fact. The petitioner is also entitled to raise all the legally sustainable pleas for questioning the impugned order in the statutory appeal. In this view of the matter, I decline to interfere with the order of respondent No.3 at this stage. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed and the petitioner is entitled to work out his remedy as indicated above. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.32698 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date: 08.10.2010 ES