THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.31409 of 2010 DT.14.12.2010 Between: Smt.Vadde Lakshmidevamma … Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy Counsel for respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 02.12.2010, of respondent No.3, whereby he has resumed land admeasuring Ac.4.95 cents comprised in Survey Nos.323/6, 323/7, 323/8, 323/9 and 323/11 of Chennuru Village, Dagadarthi Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District. In the manner in which the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. At the hearing, Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, leaned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that his client has a remedy of appeal to the Joint Collector, Nellore. He has, however, stated that in the impugned order, it is mentioned that the aggrieved party has initially approached the Joint Collector, who has forwarded the representation to respondent No.3. He has therefore, stated that as the order was passed at the instance of the appellate authority, his client cannot file an appeal. I have carefully perused the impugned order where it is stated that Smt.Pasumarthi Ademma and some other persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community represented to the Joint Collector during a programme called “Grama Darshini” held in the office of respondent No.3 that one Sri Vadde Sriramulu, S/o Vengala Naidu is in unlawful occupation of the land belonging to their family and that the Joint Collector has forwarded the said representation to respondent No.3 with instructions to take action in accordance with law. It is evident that the Joint Collector has not taken any view on the matter and instead, has directed respondent No.3 to initiate action according to law. From this, it cannot be presumed that the Joint Collector has already pre-judged the issue disabling the petitioner from filing an appeal. Being superior authority, there is nothing wrong on the part of the Joint Collector to direct his subordinate officer to act according to law in redressing the grievance of the affected parties. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no legal constraint on the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. Even if the impugned order suffers from illegalities and irregularities, the very purpose of appeal is to seek redressal against such orders and if the petitioner can make out that the order suffers from such illegalities and irregularities, there shall be no reason why the appellate authority will not consider and redress the petitioner’s grievance. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed bypassing the statutory appeal. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy as noted above. To enable the petitioner to avail such appeal, and to protect his interests till the remedy is availed, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained for a period of one month. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39954 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 14.12.2010 Note: Issue CC in five days (b/o) VGB