W.P.No.30392 of 2025, DR,J APHC010584092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 30392/2025 Between: Masarapu Satyam and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 2. GP FOR REVENUE W.P.No.30392 of 2025, DR,J The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents No. 4 and 5 in not considering the Petitioners Representation dt. 15.09.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and in violation of principles of natural justice and to pass” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 4 to 6 and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3, 7 and 8. 3. The Full Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 9512 of 2003, dated 24.10.2006, in Yanala Malleshwari and Others v. Ananthula Sayamma and Others, has laid down as follows: 26. Coming to the present case, as stated above, there is no prohibition under the Act for the vendor to get the cancellation deed registered. Therefore this court cannot read the same in the statute. However, the aggrieved party can always approach competent civil court. The learned government pleader submitted that even if the cancellation deed is registered, as per the instructions given by I.G under section 69 of the Act, the registering officer is issuing notice to the earlier W.P.No.30392 of 2025, DR,J purchaser and also endorsing on the cancellation deed that such cancellation deed does not alter the rights. Further some of the parties filed suits and obtained status quo orders. 27. It is also to be seen that there are many disputed questions of fact, which this court cannot delve under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Further it is not as though the petitioners are without any remedy, they have alternative remedy before the competent civil court, which will be in a position to adjudicate based on the evidence both oral and documentary available on record and therefore when an alternative and efficacious remedy is available, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. 4. In view of the decision rendered by the Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No. 9512 of 2003, dated 24.10.2006 (Yanala Malleshwari and Others v. Ananthula Sayamma and Others), this Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by approaching the competent civil court for appropriate relief. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 04.11.2025 klk W.P.No.30392 of 2025, DR,J 171 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.30392 of 2025 04.11.2025 kkllkk