IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19488 of 2001 Between: B. Jayaranga Reddy … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. G. Neeraja Reddy for Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for respondents 1to3: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondents 4to28: Sri M.C. Acharyulu This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19488 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash order dated 30.04.2001 passed by respondent No.1. Heard Smt. G. Neeraja Reddy representing Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri M.C. Acharyulu for respondent Nos.4 to 28 and perused the record. The dispute relates to an extent of Ac.3.20 guntas of land in Sy.No.2/2 of Kurumidda Village, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner’s name was entered in the pahani as pattadar and cultivator from the year 1980-81 onwards. A few years prior to 1978-79, the name of Banthu Rangaiah was recorded in pattadar and also in possession column. On the representation ﬁled by Vyavasaya Kuli Sangam, Ibrahimpatnam, the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, respondent No.3, held an enquiry and submitted a report to respondent No.2, wherein he stated that there is no record to show that the petitioner was assigned the abovementioned extent and that as per choufasla for the year 1966-67 the father of the petitioner was pattadar of Ac.106.14 cents and that he was not a landless poor person. On the basis of the reports of respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order. In his order, respondent No.1 stated that faisal patti for the year 1978-79 showed that laoni- izafa was sanctioned in the name of Banthu Rangaiah, that the pahanies for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80 showed the name of Binde Jaya Rangaiah as pattadar and possessor, while the pahanies from the years 1980- 81 showed the name of Binde Jaya Ranga Reddy (petitioner) and that these entries are not in accordance with the sanction of the Nazim-e-Jamabandi in the faisalpatti for the year 1978-79. He also found that the petitioner failed to produce any patta to show that he became the rightful owner of the property and his name was entered in the record of rights on the basis of lawful title. Respondent No.1 also found that the petitioner’s name was illegally entered in the record of rights as laoni pattadar without any order passed by the competent authority. On the said premise, respondent No.1 directed deletion of the petitioner’s name from the record of rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the order of respondent No.1 suﬀers from illegality. However, having considered the reasoning given by respondent No.1, I am not in agreement with her. Respondent No.1 rendered ﬁndings on the basis of the record. As these ﬁndings fall in the realm of a ﬁnding of fact, this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and adjudicate on these disputed questions of fact. Under Section 8 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, if any person is aggrieved as to any rights of which he is in possession by an entry made in any record of rights he may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such right for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Speciﬁc Relief Act, 1963 and the entry in the record of rights shall be amended in accordance with any such declaration. As the petitioner has an eﬀective statutory remedy of civil suit available in which the disputes of facts can be conveniently gone into on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail such remedy. The competent civil Court shall entertain the civil suit, if the same is ﬁled within a period of two months from today and adjudicate the same on merits. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.24549 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.09.2008 ES