HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1507 OF 2014 DATE: 09.12.2014 Between:
The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District & others.
… Appellants And Smt. Sunkara Sujana … Respondent This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1507 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is sought to be preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2014, whereby His Lordship was pleased direct the registering authority to register the instrument for sale of a piece of land in question.
The writ petition was filed against the action of the 3rd respondent therein in rejecting the writ petitioner’s application for mutation of her name in the record of rights in respect of the land in question.
The learned Single Judge admitted the writ petition for hearing and invited affidavits. Counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is merely stated that the land in question is a Government land, but no document has been produced in support thereof. His Lordship observed the status of the land in question and thereafter directed mutation on the strength of the document.
We are of the view that once a document is registered, and unless it is set aside and cancelled, the authority concerned cannot question registered document like civil Court and he is obliged to mutate.
Learned Advocate General urges that an alternative remedy is available under the statute by way of an appeal followed by revision.
We have checked up the counter, wherein no such plea has been taken up by the State. According to us, the plea of alternative remedy has to be taken at the threshold or even later in the affidavit showing why alternative remedy will have to be resorted to, for entertainment of the writ petition where alternative remedy is available, is a discretionary exercise by the writ Court. If the writ Court decides to entertain the writ petition exercising its jurisdiction, the appellate Court cannot substitute it. In this case we find no such plea was taken. We therefore do not want to interfere with the impugned order. However, it would be open for the appellants to approach the civil Court as has been observed by His Lordship to file an appropriate suit in accordance with law; namely, for declaration, cancellation, recovery of possession and rectification of the mutation. All points are kept open to be agitated before the civil Court if such action is allowed.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 09.12.2014 ES