APHC010418722017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 336 of 2017 Bench Sr.No:-53 [3483] M. N. Chowdary and others ...Appellant(s) Vs. State of AP Rep by Prl. Scy TW and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellants: Mr. P. R. K. Amerandra Kumar Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. K. Gani Reddy, GP for Social Welfare (AP) CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 16th September, 2025. Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral): The present Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.03.2017, passed in W.P.No.40884 of 2016. 2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition had challenged the proceedings dated 10.11.2015, issued by the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare), K.R. Puram, West Godavari District, primarily on the ground that the same was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 3. The petitioner had claimed that he was the owner and possessor of agriculture land to an extent of Acs.10.00 cents in R.S.No.88 of Darbhagudem 2 HCJ & RCJ WA_336_2017 Village in Jeelugumilli Mandal of West Godavari District, which was purchased by his father from one Pydimarla Krishna Reddy on 21.07.1968, i.e. prior to the commencement of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (Regulation No.I of 1959), as amended by Regulation No.I of 1970. 4. The case of the petitioner was that earlier in regard to the same parcel of land, a complaint was filed against the petitioner in which an enquiry was conducted and finally the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram, vide his order dated 30.03.2005, disallowed the claim of the claimant, Sri Sankara Rao. It is stated that no appeal was preferred against the said order and therefore the right of the petitioner in regard to the land in question was upheld. It is further stated that yet again a complaint came to be filed in regard to the same parcel of land. However, instead of incorporating the petitioner as a respondent in the subsequent complaint, one Mandava Venkataratnam was incorporated as a party respondent. 5. During the course of the proceedings before the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram, in S.R.No.116 of 2015, a statement came to be made by the respondent in the complaint, namely Sri Mandava Venkataratnam, that the scheduled land was not related to him and therefore, a request was made to the Special Deputy Collector (Tribal Welfare) to drop the proceedings against him. 3 HCJ & RCJ WA_336_2017 6. The Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, Polavaram, in its order dated 10.11.2015, recorded that the Village Revenue Officer had issued a possession certificate that the scheduled land belong to 8 tribals each one of whom were in possession and enjoyment to an extent of Ac.1.50 cents. The names of the tribals were also specifically mentioned in the said order. Finally, the complaint filed by the complainant, Smt. T. Krishnaveni, was allowed and the Tahsildar concerned was directed to initiate eviction proceedings as per rules. 7. Challenging the aforementioned order, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.40884 of 2016, which was disposed of with an observation that the petitioner - appellant herein should either ignore the order passed by the concerned or prefer an appeal before the competent authority. Learned Single Judge held that the Writ Petition was not maintainable in view of the availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant before us would urge that the learned Single Judge committed a gross error in not appreciating that the availability of an alternate remedy was no bar to the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction by the High Court, especially in a case where the petitioner had established that principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as the petitioner was not a party respondent at all, even when Section 3(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh S.A.L.T. Regulations, 1959, specifically envisaged the authority to issue due notice to the party affected. 4 HCJ & RCJ WA_336_2017 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. We are of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in law, more so in the light of the established legal principle that there can be no bar to the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction by the High Court, in a case where principles of natural justice were violated notwithstanding the fact that there was available to a party an alternate remedy. 11. Reference in this regard can be made to Whirlpool Corpn. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks1, wherein it was held that an alternate remedy does not operate as a bar, in at least the following contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 12. The aforementioned position was reiterated, subsequently, in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh2, the Apex Court on conspectus of various judgments on the issue, crystallised the following principles: “27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 1 (1998) 8 SCC 1 2 (2021) 6 SCC 771 5 HCJ & RCJ WA_336_2017 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” 13. On a perusal of the order impugned passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, it can be seen that the respondent in the complaint filed by the complainant had clearly made a statement that he had nothing to do with the land which was the subject matter of the complaint and therefore the complaint which resulted in an order of eviction, was effectively an order of eviction against the petitioner - appellant herein, who have a right to be heard 6 HCJ & RCJ WA_336_2017 after serving upon him due notice, which is otherwise envisaged in terms of Section 3(2)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Schedule Land Transfer Regulations, 1959, as amended by Regulation No.I of 1970. 14. 14. Be that as it may, we set aside the judgment and order impugned and the present writ appeal is accordingly allowed with a direction to the Special Deputy Collector, Tribal Welfare, - respondent No.3 herein, to pass orders afresh, after hearing the appellant. 15. Although learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in the case of Chintalapati Ramalinga Raju v. District Collector, Eluru, W.G. District 3, to bring home the point that a second enquiry in regard to the same subject matter was impermissible, yet, we leave the issue open to be considered by the authority at the time of according consideration. It will be open to the Deputy Collector to issue notice to the parties concerned, for appearance and taking the matter forward. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN 3 2000 (4) ALD 443