The existence of an alternative statutory remedy under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 precludes the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

Questioning the action of the respondents more particularly 4^th respondent in recording the name of the 5^th respondent in revenue records vide Khata No.524 in respect of petitioner’s land in Sy.No.198-D to an extent of Ac.5.61 cents situated at Halaharvi Village, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Revenue and Sri Marella Radha, learned Counsel for respondent No.5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject land as reflected in the Revenue Records. In the year 2016, without notice to the petitioner, the name of the 5^th respondent was mutated by the revenue authorities in the revenue records, as such grievance has been raised before the authorities concerned by way of complaint for deletion of the 5^th respondent name and to incorporate her name. Accordingly, the revenue authorities have set right the revenue records and once again mutated the petitioner’s name. Subsequently, without putting the petitioner on notice, at the instance of 5^th respondent, once again got mutated the 5^th respondent name in the revenue records. If such mutation subsists it affects the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner and her husband got filed civil suit vide O.S.No.86 of 2014 for declaration of right and the same is pending consideration, as such prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for 5th respondent submitted that the 5th respondent name got mutated way back in the year 2016 itself and the same is within the knowledge of the petitioner and a suit has also been filed against the petitioner in O.S.No.196 of 2016 and is pending. Wherein it was categorically stated about the incorporation of his name in the revenue records and without taking steps in appropriate time, now the petitioner got filed the present writ petition that too after five years. In the said circumstances this court cannot adjudicate the same. If at all the petitioner has any grievance she has to approach the Joint Collector by virtue of Section 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader on counter submitted that as per the revenue record the 5^th respondent name is mutated but she is not in possession and enjoyment. Even the petitioner has not filed any appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni under provisions of ROR Act. Further submitted that the petitioner got filed a suit vide O.S.No.86/2014 and the respondent No.5 also got filed a suit vide O.S.No.196 of 2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur and both the suit are pending consideration. The petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971. The petitioner cannot ventilate his grievance under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed, accordingly prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revenue authorities mutated the 5^th respondent name by deleting the petitioner name in the revenue records with regard to the subject property without any notice to the petitioner. Noticing the same the petitioner approached the respondent No.4 wherein they have set right the revenue records and once again they have incorporated the petitioner’s name. Without informing to the petitioner, the revenue authorities once again deleted the name of the petitioner without notice and incorporated the 5^th respondent name. It is not in d