THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3694 OF 2005 ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The petitioner herein happens to be a declarant in the proceedings purported to have been arising under A P Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act , 1973, who files this writ petition inter-alia seeking for a mandamus declaring the proceedings in G O Ms No. 120 Revenue (L.Ref.I) Department dated 22.1.2005 of the first respondent herein as illegal and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and also stating that the same is contrary to the judgment of this Court in W P No. 21801 of 2004 dated 26.11.2004. Briefly, the facts which emanate from the checkered history as set out by the petitioner is that he filed a declaration under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and ultimately after the regular proceedings, the primary Tribunal passed an award holding the petitioner as surplus holder and the same was confirmed both in appeal and revision. At later stage, an application is filed by the petitioner raising certain dispute as to the correctness of the land in Survey No. 55/5 admeasuring Ac.86.50 cents on the ground that it is a rocky land and the same cannot be taken as an holding nor it can be taken in surrender. The said application was dismissed and the appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by order dated 23.11.1984. Admittedly as against the said order, no revision is filed and the same has become final. Subsequent to the acceptance of surrender of the said land, on the proposal submitted by the petitioner himself, the first respondent issued the impugned G O ms No. 120 dated 22.1.2005 allotting the said land to others. In the circumstances, we are of the view that having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not exhaust the remedies provided under the provisions of the Act, it is not open for him to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The very legislation is self contained one and provides effective remedies at different hierarchy. The order rejecting the petitioner’s contention on the aforesaid objection was passed as long back as on 23.11.1984 and same has become final, since no revision is filed nor any other remedies taken against the said order. Hence, it is not open for the petitioner to seek any indulgence after such long lapse of time and latches on his own part. Accordingly, we do not find any merits in the writ petition and dismiss the same on the ground of non-availing of appropriate remedies available under the law. However, we make it clear that it is always open for the petitioner to avail any remedy available under. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J _______________ SANJAY KUMAR,J DATE: 28.8.2009 TVK/ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 3694 OF 2005 DATE: 28.8.2009