IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) BETWEEN MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.33096 of 2014 Kalidas Jagannadham.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A. GIRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner seeks to question the order of the Joint collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Prakasam District, dated 02.09.2014 wherein the claim of the petitioner under Section 11(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) was considered afresh and rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the earlier round of litigation, which came up to his Court, the rejection of the petitioner’s application by the Settlement Officer, Director of Settlements as well as the Commissioner of Appeals was set aside by this Court in WP.No.2118 of 2005 dated 10.12.2010 and as such, the petitioner’s claim was remitted for fresh consideration with liberty to the petitioner to lead evidence both oral and documentary apart from the evidence, which is already on record and till passing of appropriate orders, as above, status quo was directed to be maintained.
Learned counsel submits that by virtue of the present order, which is impugned, the Settlement Officer has not considered the documentary evidence on record and has not kept himself confined to the directions of this Court, as above and thereby, the order passed by the Settlement Officer is not in conformity with the observations of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. Petitioner, therefore, has moved the present writ petition directly questioning the order of the Settlement Officer.
3. In my view, the order of the Settlement Officer is subject to an appeal under Section 67(2) of the Act before the Director of Settlements and the order of the Director of Settlements is again appeallable before the Commissioner of Appeals. Hence, bypassing two efficacious alternative remedies available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner had earlier availed both the said alternative remedies against the order of the Settlement Officer. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the directions of this Court are not kept in mind by the Settlement Officer can also be considered by the appellate authorities.
Hence, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the said alternative remedies and in order to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority and secure appropriate interim direction, status quo, as directed to be maintained as per orders of this Court in WP.No.2118 of 2005 dated 10.12.2010, referred to above, shall be maintained for a period of four (4) weeks.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 10, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 12.11.2014. (B/o) DSK