IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO : 20204 of 1997 Between: P.S.T.V.N.Kumar S/o P.V.R.Swamy Lingapuram Village Charla Mandl, Khammam district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner,Survey Settlements & Land Records, A.P.Hyderabad. Dismissed for default as per court order dt.2-8-2000 as against the R.R1 2 The Director of Settlements, A.P.Hyderabad. 3 The Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Charla Mandal, Khammam District. 5 Sri Mutyala venkataswamy, S/O Murtyala satyanarayana murthy Lingapuram Village, Charla mandal, Khammam District. Dismissed for default as per court order dt.2-8-2000 as against R5. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue as Writ of Certiorari Calling for the records Relating to the order passed in CSS & LR's Ref.No.L1/71/85,dt.24-4-97 by the first Respondent and Quash the same Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.MANIKYALA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO. 20204 of 1997 ORDER: The Writ Petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner, Survey Settlements & Land Records, 1st respondent herein passed in Case No.L1/71/85, dated 24.4.1997. According to the petitioner, he owns and possesses the land to an extent of Ac.0.75 cents comprised in Sy.No.1/1, situate at Lingapuram Village, Charla Mandal, Khammam District. The said land being in agency area, covered by A.P. Mahals (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Regulations, 1969. He claims that he is entitled for grant of Ryotwari patta on the basis of his long standing possession over the required statutory period under Section 5 of the Regulations and claims that he is entitled to grant of ryotwari patta by the Settlement Officer, 3rd respondent herein. The petitioner alleges that while the 5th respondent made an application to the Settlement Officer for grant of patta, which was rejected on 27.11.1974, since the petitioner came to know about the same, he preferred an appeal before the Director of Settlement, 2nd respondent herein under Section 9 of the Regulations being Appeal No.2 of 1984. The contention of the petitioner is that he has brought to the notice of the said appellate authority that he is actually concerned with the land but not the 5th respondent and he claims that the Settlement Officer did not give any notice to him and that he has already filed documents in the nature of land revenue receipts from 1956 to 1970 before the Settlement Officer. The grievance of the petitioner before the appellate authority was that his case for grant of ryotwari patta ought to have been considered by the Settlement Officer instead the authority proceeded to consider the case of a wrong person i.e. the 5th respondent who is not at all connected with the lands. The said appeal was however rejected by the 2nd respondent herein on 19.11.1984 on the ground that the land in question is not cultivable land and that no documentary evidence is produced by the petitioner to show his continuous possession over the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent in L1/71/85, which is since been rejected under the impugned order dated 24.4.1997. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. I have heard Sri K. Manikyala Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. I have examined the record of the case including the counter filed on behalf of the official respondents. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has lawfully acquired the above said land and the evidence of payment of land revenue in the nature of receipts for the period 1956 to 1970 were produced by him before the Settlement Officer itself. However, since no notice was given to him and erroneously, the claim of the 5th respondent was processed and rejected, the petitioner claims that he was forced to file an appeal as an aggrieved person. The appellate authority also has not examined the matter in the light of documentary evidence already available on record including the permission granted in his favour by the Board of Revenue on 27.9.1962 for construction of a rice mill on part of the land. Petitioner contends that the 1st respondent has rejected the appeal without considering the documentary evidence on record and his claim for grant of ryotwari patta was remained unconsidered by all the three authorities and he is deprived of his entitlement to the ryotwari patta. Learned Government Pleader contends that on the own showing of the petitioner, the land is constructed upon as a rice mill 8 years prior to the effective date of enforcement of the Regulations i.e. 8 years prior to 26.12.1970 which disentitles grant of any ryotwari patta to the petitioner. He has also contended that none of the documents as claimed, are produced by the petitioner as the orders of the 2nd respondent as well as 1st respondent do not record any such documents, as produced. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order is just and proper and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. On consideration of the entire material, it is evident that out of Ac.0.75 cents of land, the petitioner claims that he constructed a rice mill on Ac.0.15 cents and the remaining Ac.0.60 cents is under his cultivation throughout. He has asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he has produced land revenue receipts for the period 1956 to 1970, to show 8 years possession over the land prior to notified date. He also asserts that even the construction of rice mill was under due permission of Board of Revenue dated 27.9.1962, a copy of which is produced in material papers. Before the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was not heard as is evident from the order. The order of the 3rd respondent dated 27.11.1974 and the order of the 2nd respondent as well as 1st respondent respectively show that for want of any documentary evidence to show 8 years lawful possession, the case of the petitioner was not considered. The assertion of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he has produced these documents referred to above, before the 3rd respondent, however is not controverted and there is no consideration of any of these documents by the 1st and the 2nd appellate authority. In the interest of justice and since valuable propriety rights of the petitioner are likely to be affected, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam, 3rd respondent herein to consider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the documents he has produced and pass appropriate orders on merits after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to produce such further evidence, if so advised as he deems fit and proper. The 3rd respondent, on consideration of evidence, shall pass a reasoned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside as above. No order as to costs. ______________________ NOVEMBER 26, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Tsr. Copy to: 1 The Commissioner, Survey Settlements & Land Records, A.P.Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Settlements, A.P.Hyderabad. 3 The Settlement Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4 The Mandal Revenue officer, Charla Mandal, Khammam District. 5. The Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, High Court, Hyderabad (OUT) 6. Two C.D. copies.