THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.5846 of 2006 Date:24.03.2011 Between: Venumbaka Rama Krishna Reddy ..Petitioner And The District Collector, Nellore and others ..Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No.5846 of 2006 ORDER: The writ petition is filed seeking the relief of a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to effect the necessary alterations in the revenue records and village accounts enumerating the petitioner’s name as owner to an extent of Acs.6.17 cents in survey No.97/1 of Biradawada Village, Naidupet Mandal, Nellore District, in compliance with the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore in S.R.No.89/11(a)/74 NLR, dated 18.05.1976 and to cancel the assignments made in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 18 and to effect redelivery of the land to the petitioner. Suffice it to notice that the claim of the petitioner’s father – V. Ramachandra Reddy under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (for short ‘1948 Act’) for grant of a ryotwari patta in respect of the land in question was allowed and a ryotwari patta granted under Section 11(a) of 1948 Act to him on 18.05.1976. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, Sullurpet preferred a revision beyond the period of limitation which was rejected as time barred by the Director of Settlements, by order dated 07.11.1977. Meanwhile, assignment of this land was made in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 18 without any thought bestowed by the revenue officials, of the potentiality of having to grant ryotwari patta under the provisions of 1948 Act. Consequent on the issue of ryotwari patta, applications were made by the petitioner’s father to cancel the assignments and redeliver the property and to effect necessary alterations in the revenue records. There being no response, the petitioner’s father filed W.P.No.3533 of 1978. Waking up to the gross error committed in granting assignments of property which does not belong to the State in view of the grant of ryotwari patta to the petitioner’s father, the Director of Survey and Settlements initiated a suo motu revision under Section 5(2) of 1948 Act against the order of primary authority – the Settlement Officer, dated 18.05.1976 and allowed the suo motu revision by his order dated 03.02.1979. Revision preferred there against by the father of the petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements, by order dated 16.12.1980. The petitioner’s father thereupon approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5467 of 1981. The said writ petition was allowed and the orders of the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements confirming the order of the Director of Survey and Settlements (allowing the suo motu revision) were quashed on 16.02.1988. There against and undaunted, the State preferred W.A.No.1640 of 1989 which was dismissed by the order dated 21.09.1995. The State then approached the Supreme Court, which by the order dated 19.07.2002 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Even so the State did not implement the order of the Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner’s father after whose demise the petitioner succeeded to the property. Hence, the present writ petition was filed complaining against the inaction of the State. The District Collector, Nellore, has filed a counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit at last asserting that the order of the Settlement Officer granting ryotwari patta has been effectuated; the illegal assignments made by the State have been rescinded; the assignees were evicted; the petitioner was put into possession of the property; and the revenue records were altered enumerating the name of the petitioner as the pattadar. It, however, requires to be noticed that both the counter and the additional counter of the Collector dwell at inordinate length on the justification of the orders of the Director of Survey and Settlements and the Commissioner of Survey and Settlements rescinding the order of the Settlement Officer dated 18.05.1976; despite his orders having been quashed by this Court by a learned single Judge, which order was confirmed by the learned Division Bench and the State appeal there against was dismissed by the Supreme Court as early as in 2002. It is distressing to note that the official respondents seem to be unhappy that their efforts to justify the illegal act of assignments has been thwarted by orders of judicial authority. Such is the apparent fidelity displayed by the official respondents to the orders of judicial authority. The conduct of the official respondents, in the circumstances, needs to be deprecated. Be that as it may. Since the order of the Settlements Officer dated 18.05.1976 has since been implemented though after lapse of nine years even from the date of the dismissal of S.L.P. preferred by the State, this Court is not inclined to impose costs since the costs would again be recovered from the public exchequer and not from the officers or the succession of officers responsible for such arbitrary conduct. This Court hopes and trusts that the State Government will enquire into the conduct of the officers who were oblivious to the rule of law obligations in our constitutional democracy. However, since the orders have now been implemented, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 24th March, 2011 Note: Mark a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for appropriate consideration. (B/o) GHN