IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10285 of 2009 Between: Burra Bondaiah, S/o. Late Gouraiah, R/o. Bhupalpally Village and Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Sub-Collector & Sub-Divisional Magistrat, Mulug, Warangal District. 2 The Tahsildar, Bhoopalpally, Warangal District. 3 Renukuntla Komaraiah, S/o. Madanaiah, R/o. Bhupalpally Village and Mandal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the record relating to Appeal in RC No. J/384/2009 on the file of the first respondent filed by the third respondent against the petitioner and quash the same declaring as highly arbitrary, bad and illegal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 10285 of 2009 25-06-2009 Oral Order: The writ petition is misconceived. It is directed against the notice dated 29-03-2009 issued by the 1st respondent on an appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent apparently under Section 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) assailing the grant of pattedar passbook and title deed to the petitioner in respect of certain extents of lands in Bhupalapally village and Mandal, Warangal District. At the hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not contend that the 1st respondent is not the competent authority to entertain the petition filed under Section 5-B of the Act. What the petitioner contends is that these lands were initially treated as surplus lands of the declarant and scheduled for surrender, but were later deleted since the declarant had sold these lands to the petitioner under an unregistered sale deed. After withdrawal from the surrender, under the provisions of the Agricultural Land Ceilings Act, the petitioner applied to the revenue authorities under the provisions of the Act and obtained mutation, pattedar passbook and title deeds in respect of these lands. The 3rd respondent claims to have purchased these lands from the declarant, the vendor of the petitioner, and has filed the appeal before the 1st respondent. The 3rd respondent has no lawful claim to the ownership of the lands nor does he have any right for having his name mutated in the revenue records or to obtain patedar passbook and title deed and therefore he could not have gainfully maintained an appeal, is the contention. This is not a contention that is germane and relevant to a challenge to what is a mere show cause notice. A show cause notice could be challenged only if no appellate remedy were available or if the 1st respondent who had issued the notice was not the competent authority to entertain the appeal. No other ground would warrant grant of relief in the writ petition in the nature of a writ of Prohibition. The petitioner may respond to the notice and lodge his objections to the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent, on merits. This Court is not in doubt that the 1st respondent will consider the 3rd respondent’s claim along with the petitioner’s objections and pass an order in accordance with law. None of the observations made herein are intended to be an expression by this Court on the merits of the case of either party. The 1st respondent will adjudicate upon the appeal on the material on record. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 25-06-2009 Pvks