THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.20400 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to order passed by the first respondent in Commr.Appeals Procgs.No.P1/734 and 1657/2003 dated 7.10.2004 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, he is the son of late Rama Murthy. Namballa Ayyappa is the paternal grand father of Ramamurthy. Namballa Ayyappa had three sons namely; China Appanna, Akkubhotlu and Poornayya. China Appanna had two sons namely; Ayyappa and Rama Murthy i.e. petitioner’s father. Petitioner’s great grand father Namballa Ayyappa was granted permanent lease in the year 1865 to an extent of Ac.66-66 cents of land, which was locally called as “Singaraya Metta” in Old Survey No.3 of Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam district. The village Kapparada was an Inam Estate taken over by the Government in the year 1964 and survey and settlement operations were conducted in the year 1966. The land was assigned new survey numbers as R.S.No.9 and its sub-divisions. According to the petitioner, owing to the early demise of his father and paternal uncle, he became aware of his entitlement to a ryotwari patta belatedly only when the other descendants of Namballa Ayyappa informed him that they were granted ryotwari pattas. On their advice, petitioner filed an application under Section 11(a) of Estates Abolition Act, 1948 before the 3rd respondent in the year 1980 for grant of patta in respect of Ac.4-00 in R.S.No.9/2 and Ac.7-00 in R.S.No.9/6 of Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam district and the same was allowed by the 3rd respondent vide orders in S.R.11(a) 3/81 VSP dated 16.8.1985 granting ryotwari patta in respect of Ac.4-00 in favour of petitioner and rejecting the request in respect of Ac.7-00. The ground for rejection of the said claim was that the petitioner could not adduce evidence to correlate land in Old Survey No.3 and R.S.No.9/6. Questioning the same, petitioner filed revision in R.P.No.487/85/B2 before the 2nd respondent. In the said R.P., respondents 5 to 7 filed implead petition after more than (7) years claiming to be grand sons of Smt.Namballa Appalanarsamma and the said implead petition was dismissed by order dated 30.6.1995 primarily on the ground that since they are claiming ryotwari patta, they have to file an application before the competent authority. Insofar as revision of the petitioner was concerned, the 2nd respondent by order in R.P.No.487/85/B2 dated 30.6.1995 allowed the petition and directed the 3rd respondent to decide the claim of the petitioner afresh. Even before the 3rd respondent also, respondents 5 to 7 filed implead petitions and claimed ryotwari patta. However, after being questioned about the difference of identity of land and the actual land involved in the dispute, they withdrew their applications. After elaborate enquiry including examination and cross-examination of witnesses and based on records, 3rd respondent concluded the land as “non-ryoti” as per statutory definition; though shown as “Singaraya Metta” poramboke in the official record, the land of Ac.66-60 cents in Old Survey No.3 was in possession of persons whose rights were recognized and the enjoyment of the land by the family of the petitioner began in the year 1863 itself and the petitioner is entitled for patta. Thus, the 3rd respondent allowed the claim of the petitioner in respect of Ac.7-00 in R.S.No.9/6 of Kapparada village vide orders in S.R.11(a) 3/81/VSP dated 12.7.1996. Insofar as respondents 5 to 7 are concerned, they laid their claim on the basis of sale deeds dated 26.8.1935, 21.6.1937 and 11.2.1950 alleged to be in the name of their grand mother Appalanarsamma. It is their case that the said Appalanarsamma by an unregistered Will Deed dated 10.4.1991 bequeathed the land in their favour. The 3rd respondent after hearing them and comparing the documents with those on record had recorded a finding that the documents relied upon by the respondents 5 to 7 relate to some other land in Madhavadhara village. However, on a compromise, the respondents once again filed a joint memo dated 29.6.1996 stating that they are withdrawing their claim. Regardless of dismissal of their applications as withdrawn before the 3rd respondent, respondents 5 to 7 once again filed a Revision Petition in R.P.No.1/97/VSP/B2 before 2nd respondent against the order in S.R.11(a) 3/81/VSP dated 12.7.1996 of 3rd respondent purportedly under Section 5(2) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948. Respondents 5 to 7 have also filed application to implead them as respondents in the revision filed by 3rd respondent. After elaborate hearing and on consideration of all the documents, the 2nd respondent dismissed both the revision petitions; i.e. one filed by respondents 5 to 7 and the other filed by 4th respondent by his common order dated 30.8.1997. In the said order, the 2nd respondent once again recorded that the claim of respondents 5 to 7 that China Appanna mortgaged the subject land on 26.8.1935 to Sanapala Seethanna and ultimately sold away the land to the same person on 21.6.1937 that the land was purchased by their grand mother Appalanarsamma on 11.2.1950 and gave the same to them by an unregistered will before her death that occurred on 22.1.1992. On consideration of the documents, the 2nd respondent concluded that the land and boundaries mentioned in the said documents had nothing to do with the lands that are subject matter of revision petition. Questioning the orders of 2nd respondent in R.P.No.55/96/VSP/B2 dated 30.8.1997, 4th respondent filed yet another revision before the 1st respondent. Respondents 5 to 7 again filed an application to implead them in the said revision, but filed a memo dated 18.6.1999 seeking to withdraw their application in view of compromise entered into with the petitioner. Further, respondents 5 to 7 also filed another revision purportedly under Section 5(2) of Estates Abolition Act, 1948 before the 2nd respondent by suppressing the order of 3rd respondent dated 16.8.1995 passed against them. Surprisingly, the 2nd respondent without reference to any of the earlier proceedings, had decided the matter by order dated 25.3.2003 in R.P.No.13/2000/B2 remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent even without going into the crucial issue as to how the abnormal delay of more than a decade could be condoned without notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order in reopening the case that has become final decades ago, petitioner filed appeal before the 1st respondent. Elaborate grounds were raised and the matter was argued at length. Insofar as respondents 5 to 7 are concerned, not even a piece of paper was filed or served on the petitioner. However, the appeal culminated in Commr.Appeals Procgs.No.P1/734 and 1657/2003, wherein the 1st respondent upturned the entire factual matrix and without any discussion, upheld the claim of respondents 5 to 7 basing on the very same three documents that were found to have nothing to do with the subject land and passed the impugned order dated 7.10.2004. The 1st respondent went to the extent of directing 3rd respondent to issue pattas in the name of respondents 5 to 7. According to the petitioner, the impugned order of 1st respondent dated 7.10.2004 is a crystallized fraud. None of the respondents 5 to 7 were before the 1st respondent. A person claiming to be a GPA holder appeared and on the date of hearing, not even a word was submitted to the 1st respondent. However, the 1st respondent, dehors the finality attained in respect of both the matters relating to Ac.4-00 in R.S.No.9/2 and Ac.7-00 in R.S.No.9/6 of Kapparada village, has passed order that is an epitome of illegality, arbitrariness and obviously legalized a champerty agreement between the alleged GPA holder and respondents 5 to 7. The fraud behind the illegal order is also evident from the fact that copies were not marked to the petitioner and to other revision petitioners. The address of the Advocate on record was described wrongly to see that the order is not served on time. Ultimately, petitioner could procure a copy of the order only on 26.10.2004 and immediately he rushed to this Court and filed the present writ petition. It is further stated by the petitioner that Smt.Namballa Appalanarsamma, the grand mother of respondents also filed suit in O.S.No.122 of 1987 before the learned Principal District Munsif, Visakhapatnam seeking permanent injunction against the petitioner and (3) others including the Municipal Corporation and the Urban Development Authority in respect of 340 sq.yards of land in R.S.No.9/2 of Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam district and on her death (Smt.Namballa Appalanarsamma), respondents 5 to 7 came on record as her legal representatives by order of the Court dated 27.7.1991. However, the said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 16.2.1996. It appears, K.Satyavathi and H.Triveni filed suit in O.S.No.584 of 1992 before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam for partition. Respondents 5 to 7 tried to intervene even in that case though they have little to do with the subject matter and I.A.No.322 of 1993 filed by them was dismissed by order dated 25.8.1994. The said order was confirmed by this Court by order dated 8.11.1995 in C.R.P.No.4206 of 1994. It appears, the said Namballa Appalanarsamma again filed suit in O.S.No.1169 of 1991 for permanent injunction against the petitioner in respect of same land before the learned II Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam. In the said suit also respondents 5 to 7 filed I.A.No.341 of 1992 for impleading, since Namballa Appalanarsamma expired. The said I.A. was ordered on 9.4.1996. The suit was, however, dismissed with costs, vide judgment and decree dated 3.3.1997. The same was confirmed in A.S.No.134 of 1997 by the learned VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam vide order dated 30.1.2004. While the appeal was still pending, respondents 5 to 7 again filed suit in O.S.No.3163 of 2003 before the learned I Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam again for permanent injunction in respect of same land. Though I.A.No.832 of 2003 was filed, injunction was refused and the cases are still pending. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 5 to 7 stating that genealogy of the petitioner and also the contentions of petitioner regarding the trace of title to the property in question to a permanent lease in the year 1865 and the location of the property is not in dispute so also the averments regarding the nature of land in Kapparada village, Visakhapatnam district as Inam Estate and its administration under the A.P. Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) are in fact matters of record and there is no controversy about the same. Insofar as the averments that the petitioner for the first time filed application under Section 11(a) of the Act in the year 1980, claiming ryotwari patta for Ac.11-00 cents (Ac.4-00 in R.S.No.9/2 and Ac.7-00 in R.S.No.9/6) and he having been granted a patta for the land covered by R.S.No.9/2 and his claim for land in R.S.No.9/6 being rejected holding that the land in R.S.No.9/6 is a Hill Poramboke vide orders in S.R. 11(a) 3/81 dated 16.8.1985, they are admitted as correct and matters of record. However, the averment that the petitioner becoming aware of his alleged entitlement for a patta under the Act belatedly filed the above referred application on the advice of his cousins are all false and invented for the purpose of writ petition. It could have been the same contention that he might have had urged before the primary authority then and also believed by the said authority. However, according to the respondents, it is for the first time, the petitioner has developed a wicked idea of staking a wrongful claim with the help of documents which show permanent lease was given to his great grand father and certain other documents which were in his custody. As such, though in fact, petitioner never had a right in land either in R.S.No.9/2 or in R.S.No.9/6 of Kapparada village, Visahapatnam as on the notified date, he only succeeded in the earlier proceedings suppressing certain documents and hoodwinking the Estate Abolition Tribunals. Since the petitioner had no right whatsoever as on the notified date, he did not move any application for patta along with his other first cousins and not for any other reasons. Though the transactions under Document Nos.269/1906, 711/1908, 1205/1920 are correct, they had become inconsequential and not valid in view of the facts and documents that are being relied upon by the respondents. Secondly, the other order of the Estate Abolition Tribunal referred could be true and correct, but they would not have any bearing on the claim of the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter that one Namballa Ayyappa (Senior) was the person who was granted a permanent lease of an extent of Ac.66-66 cents of land covered by Old Survey No.3 of Kapparada village in the year 1865 by the then Estate Holder. He had three sons namely (1) Namballa Chinna Appanna (2) Namballa Akkubhotlu and (3) Namballa Poornaiah. Namballa Chinna Appanna in turn had two sons namely (1) Namballa Ayyappa (Junior) and (2) Namballa Rama Murthy. The petitioner, Namballa Narayana Murthy is the son of the said Namballa Rama murthy. Thus, the entire estate of Namballa Ayyappa (Senior) devolved on his sons at the rate of 1/3rd share each. For the present, petitioner would be concerned only with the share of Namballa Chinna Appanna. Namballa Poornaiah’s 1/3rd share devolved on his wife Namballa Appalanarasamma and her son Namballa Ayyappa (Junior-II). Respondents 5 to 7 are the grand sons of Namballa Poornaiah. In the year 1935, Namballa Chinna Appanna and his two sons (by that time, the father of petitioner was minor and was represented by his father) had executed a registered usufructary mortgage of their 1/3rd share of property comprising of four items, which included the landed property now covered by R.S.Nos.9/2 and 9/6 of Kapparada village, which is Item No.4 therein in favour of one Sanapala Seetanna S/o Seetaiah vide Document No.1667 of 1935. Immediately within two years, Namballa Chinna Appanna and his sons have sold away the said landed property to the Mortgagee i.e. Sanapala Seetanna for a valuable consideration vide registered sale deed bearing Document No.951/1937 and there is a specific covenant in the said sale deed to the factum of delivery of possession. Again in the year 1950, the said Sanapalla Seetanna who was the vendee/purchaser under Document No.951/1937 had sold Item Nos.3 and 4 to the mother of respondents 5 to 7 namely Namballa Appalanarsamma under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.190 of 1950. Thus, it is clear and manifest that as on the notified date i.e. 7.1.1945, or as on the date of Government taking over Estate in the year 1966 as claimed by petitioner, he had no subsisting right or title, much less possession whatsoever over the land covered by R.S.No.9/2 and 9/6. Thus, whatever proceedings initiated by petitioner and obtaining any order(s) from any authorities are of no consequence and the same are nullity, unenforceable and untenable. Thus, the contentions raised contrary to the facts are liable to be rejected on the face of it, inasmuch as petitioner has no locus standi to initiate such proceedings. Petitioner had played fraud on the official respondents at every stage and he also played fraud on respondents 5 to 7 and their father and grand mother at every stage. The contention of the petitioner that the grand mother of respondents 5 to 7 tried to implead herself in R.P.No.463/85 B2 and later on withdrew the same is correct. But such withdrawal was a result of sheer fraud played on her and her son Namballa Ayyappa. Namballa Appalanarsamma, has already executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of her son Namballa Ayyappa (Junior-II, who is the father of respondents 5 to 7). Petitioner successfully wooed Namballa Ayyappa into an alleged compromise and made him to withdraw the cases by somehow misleading the facts. At this juncture, even the petitioner had been averring time and again that respondents 5 to 7 or their predecessors-in-interest had compromised the matter, but still were putting all frivolous claims, will speak volumes for itself and that is the reason nowhere does the petitioner explained the nature and terms of compromise and he also does not assert the method and the manner in which he had in fact adhered to the alleged compromise. Even in the proceedings in R.P.No.487 of 1985 also, the father of respondents 5 to 7 Namballa Ayyappa had engaged Sri A.Narayana Reddy, Advocate, Hyderabad to contest his case before the 2nd respondent and one Alluri Kodandarami Reddy S/o Govind Reddy, resident of Visakhapatnam was pursuing the matter on behalf of petitioner under the cover of registered General Power of Attorney bearing Document No.190 of 1990 and the said agent of the petitioner had at that time, approached the learned counsel for Namballa Ayyappa and representing himself falsely that he is the agent and power of attorney holder of Namballa Ayyappa, father of these respondents, clandestinely taken away the file from the said counsel and withdrew the brief from Sri A.Narayana Reddy and later got dismissed the matter as withdrawn. The said fact was came to know to the respondents 5 to 7 much later and very recently. Thus, the fraudulent attitude and clandestine act of petitioner is untenable by any stretch of imagination. The proximity of time in which all the incidents narrated above will clearly show the fraud played by the petitioner on the grand mother and father of respondents 5 to 7. Petitioner, under the cover of orders obtained by him by playing fraud on the official respondents, started spinning money by entering into various agreements of sale with third parties who were pumping finances for their own interests and the petitioner was able to go anywhere and respondents 5 to 7 who are poor and gullible could not stand on par with petitioner and therefore, respondents 5 to 7 owing to various predicaments and limitations every time, taught to burry the hatches and waiting to get their property. Insofar as the claim made by petitioner before the 3rd respondent who passed orders on 12.7.1996, wherein respondents 5 to 7 tried to implead themselves were unsuccessful as the 3rd respondent opined that the identity of the land is not established. In fact, in the land covered by Old Survey No.3 of Kapparada village locally known as “Singaraya Metta”, the share of Namballa Chinna Appanna’s family is only 1/3rd i.e. Ac.10-00 cents which was initially mortgaged to Sanapalla Seetanna and later on sold to the very same mortgagee in the year 1937. The said extent of Ac.10-00 cents after re-survey was assigned with R.S.Nos.9/2 for an extent of Ac.4-00 and Ac.7-00 cents was assigned with R.S.No.9/6. Unfortunately, the 3rd respondent even without proper application of mind as to various items of property covered by sale deed of Namballa Appalanarsamma and her vendor Sanapalla Seetanna, jumped to a conclusion that there is no identity of lands and the land covered by documents relied upon by respondents 5 to 7 are located in Ullivanipadu of Madhavadhara village, whose old survey number is also 3. It is further stated in the counter that even now, if the documents of respondents 5 to 7 are considered, first would be apparent. Even the 2nd respondent also committed the same error in deciding R.P.No.1/97/VSP/B2 along with RP.No.55/96/VSP/B2 vide common order dated 30.8.1997. In any event, since the petitioner had no title to the property ever since 1937, and as he suppressed the said facts deliberately, all the judicial orders, quasi-judicial acts and orders obtained are liable to become nonest in the eye of law and the said aspect of fraudulent orders obtained is now crystallized beyond any doubt. Thus, the contentions of the petitioner deserve no merit. In the additional counter filed by respondents 5 to 7 they further stated that the Director of Settlement while disposing of the Revision Petitions filed by respondents 5 to 7, by order dated 6.9.1974 held on issue No.1 that “all these facts prove that the land was not non ryoti land as defined under Section 3(16), (a) and (b) of the E.A. Act. It was a cultivable land and it was not set apart for the common use of the community”. It is further stated that the petitioner is aware of all the transactions and has signed as witness to the registered sale deeds dated 11.2.1981 and 16.11.1983 and also to the Agreement of Sale dated 8.2.1985 executed by the predecessors in title of respondents 5 to 7. The petitioner has also signed as an attesting witness to the deed of General Power of Attorney executed by the predecessors of respondents 5 to 7 in respect of the very same property. The petitioner knowing fully well all these facts is now trying to mislead this Court and trying to create confusion relying on various proceedings initiated by respondents 5 to 7. The dismissal of suits and the proceedings without any reference of the legality of title is of no avail and all these proceedings whatsoever deserves to be ignored and the same are non est in the eye of law. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar (Mandal Revenue Officer) filed a counter supporting the order passed by the 1st respondent and stated that the claimant has no evidence in support of his contentions. The land in question is not a ryoti land, but it is only a hillock. The land was never cultivated and the petitioner was never inducted into the land. It is vacant on ground. Since the lands are valuable and they are situated within the municipal limits, it is an after thought of the petitioner to grab the valuable land. According to Gillman’s register, the land covered by Old Survey No.3 admeasuring Ac.66-60 cents of Kapparada village is registered as Poramboke (Singaraya Metta). The said land is never treated as ryoti land. The village was taken over by the Government under the provisions of E.A. Act and the settlement operations were conducted during the year 1966. The land admeasuring Ac.18-02 cents in R.S.No.9/6 which is correlated to old Survey No.3(P) of Kapparada village is a hill poramboke as per Settlement Fair Adangal. Namballa Narayana Murthy S/o Ramamurthy of Madhavadhara village filed a petition under Section 11(a) of E.A. Act, 1948 before the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam for grant of ryotwari pattas of the lands covered by R.S.Nos.9/2 and 9/6 to an extent of AC.4-00 cents and Ac.7-00 cents respectively in Kapparada village. After due enquiry, the then Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam in his order vide S.R.No.11(a) 3/81 dated 16.8.1985 while allowing the claim partly by granting patta for the land covered by R.S.No.9/2 rejected the claim for the land covered by S.No.9/6 of Kapparada village. The Director of Settlement, Hyderabad has allowed the petition and issued orders in R.P.No.487/85/B2 dated 30.6.1995 and remanded the case to the Settlement Officer/Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam for discrete enquiry and disposal. The Settlement Officer/Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam granted a ryotwari patta in S.R.No.11(a)3/81 dated 12.7.1996 in favour of Namballa Narayanamurthy for the land admeasuring Ac.7-00 cents in S.No.9/6 of Kapparada village. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Urban has filed a Revision Petition before the Director of Settlement, A.P., Hyderabad and the same was disallowed in R.P.No.55/96 dated 30.8.1997. Therefore, second appeal was filed before the 1st respondent and the same was remanded to the Settlement Officer/Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam vide proceedings P1/1205/97 dated 24.12.1999. The Settlement Officer/Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam Urban has allowed the claim of Namballa Narayanamurthy in S.R.No.11(a) 3/81 dated 3.6.2000 for Ac.7-00 in S.No.9/6 of Kapparada village. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Mandal Revenue Officer filed a revision petition before the Director of Settlement, Hyderabad. The Director of Settlement in his orders dated 30.1.2004 in R.P.No.49/2000 observed at para 8 that it is a fit case to be remanded for examining the point specifically after personal inspection. He further observed that the specific issue and question herein being whether the land is ryoti or non-ryoti and whether it could have been ever cultivated in view of its location and steep gradient. Hence remanded the matter to the Settlement