THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.30649 of 2010 DT.07.12.2010 Between: D.Rajender Goud … Petitioner And The Tahsildar, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.Santosh Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside order, dated 25.11.2008, of respondent No.1, whereby he has ordered for mutation of the names of respondent Nos.3 to 9 in the record of rights. There is a dispute between the petitioner on one hand and respondent Nos.3 to 9 on the other hand, in respect of lands admeasuring Acs.16.05 guntas in Survey No.194, Acs.1.24 guntas in Survey No.7, Acs.2.03 guntas in Survey No.8, Ac.0.38 guntas in Survey No.83, Ac.0.12 guntas in Survey No.84/A and Ac.0.06 guntas in Survey No.233 of Dasaripalli Village, Wanaparthy Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession of the said property was dismissed by the trial Court. The appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree in the said suit was dismissed in default. The application filed for restoration of the appeal having been dismissed, a civil revision petition is filed, which is pending. During the pendency of the said litigation, respondent Nos.3 to 9 are stated to have approached respondent No.1 for mutation of their names in the record of rights and the said application is stated to have been rejected by order, dated 07.03.2007. However, by the impugned order passed on 25.11.2008, respondent No.1 is stated to have considered the application, which was earlier rejected, and ordered for mutation of the names of respondent Nos.3 to 9. At the hearing, Sri A.Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the impugned order is in contravention of the earlier order of respondent No.1, which is the subject matter of an appeal filed by respondent Nos.3 to 9 before respondent No.2, and that when the appeal is pending before respondent No.2, it is not permissible for respondent No.1 to pass a fresh order. Section 5(5) of the A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) provides for a remedy of appeal against any order passed by recording authority under Section 5(1) of the Act. Such an appeal can be filed by the aggrieved party, if the order appealed against suffers from any illegality. Even if the petitioner’s contention that respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to pass such an order in the face of earlier order of rejection, which is the subject matter of appeal before respondent No.2, is correct, such contention can always be raised by the petitioner in the appeal provided by the statute under Section 5(5) of the Act. Ordinarily, when an alternative remedy is available, this Court does not entertain a writ petition filed bypassing such alternative remedy. The petitioner failed to make out any ground to treat this case as an exception to this general rule. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, without going into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before respondent No.2. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.39016 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 07.12.2010. VGB