IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY , THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 21296 of 2003 Between: Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Appeals, O/o.Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Settlement Officer under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)Act,1948, Nellore (now defunct and presently Settlement Officer-cum-Joint Collector, Chittoor) 3 Smt.Tumati Padmavathamma, W/o.Krishnama Naidu, R/o.Damineedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor Dist. 4 Smt. P.Veeramma, D/o. Krishnama Naidu, R/o.Damineedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 5 Smt. K.Narsamma, D/o. Krishnama Naidu, R/o.Damineedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 6 Smt. P.Eswaramma, D/o. Krishnama Naidu, R/o.Damineedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. 7 Smt.L.Danamma, D/o. Krishnama Naidu, R/o.Damineedu Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the first respondent in Commr. Appeal's Procdg.No.P3/1105/1997 dated 28-8-2000 and declare the same to be contrary to the provisions of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioners:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION for R-1 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.21296 of 2003 ORDER This writ petition is filed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal, seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Order passed by the 1st respondent- Commissioner, Appeals dated.28.08.2000 and to quash the same being arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the A.P.(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,1948 ( for brevity “the Act”). The facts in brief are as under:- One Thomati Krishnamanaidu, predecessor-in-interest and title of respondents 3 to 7 herein in respect of Ac.5.00 of land situated in Sy.No.58/1 of Damineedu village, Tirupati Rural Mandal Chittoor District, was granted a ryotwari patta under Section.11(a) of the Act vide proceedings of the Settlement Officer dated.15-02-1983. Aggrieved by the said order the District Collector, Chittoor preferred a revision under Section.5(2) of the Act before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The said revision was allowed by order dated.25.03.1997 and ryotwari patta granted in favour of T.Krishnama Naidu was set aside holding that the documents produced by him to substantiate his claim were made up documents and did not pertain to Rs.No.58/1. Challenging the said order passed by the Director of Settlements, A.P. Hyderabad the respondents 3 to 7 herein filed a further revision under Section.7(d) of the Act before the 1st respondent. The said revision petition was allowed by order dated.28-08-2000 holding that the land in question was a ryoti land and the same was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the family of the respondents 3 to 7 herein. It was also held that the order dated.25.03.1997 was passed by the Director of Settlements without giving reasonable opportunity to the respondents 3 to 7 herein and without examining the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated.06-06-1982. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. I have heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the writ petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7 and perused the material on record. It is primarily contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that the land in question was a non-ryoti land vested with the State under Section.3(b) of the Act and therefore no ryotwari patta could have been granted. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the writ petitioner contended that Sy.No.58/1 of Damineedu Village was classified as poramboke in the revenue records and even as per Fair Land Register which was formed pursuant to the survey and settlement operations conducted under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act,1923 the said land was classified as tank poramboke and correlated to Paimash No.1- A part. It is also contended that a Government irrigation tank namely Kothapatha Cheruvu was in existence in the said land which served the ayacut to an extent of Acs.299.89 cents. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7 while submitting that the land in question is a ryoti land and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the family of the respondents 3 to 7 right from the year 1892, contended that no communal interests are ever involved over the said land. As could be seen from the material on record, Sy.No.58/1 of Damineedu village consists of large extent of land. After the said village was taken over by the Government, the provisions of the Act were made applicable prospectively. As per Section.11(a) of the Act a ryot shall be entitled to a ryotwari patta with effect from the notified date if he was inducted into possession of ryotwari land prior to 01.07.1945. Exs.P2, P3 and P4 filed before the Settlement Officer established that Ac.5.00 of land in respect of which the ryotwari patta was granted in favour of the predecessor-in-interest and title of the respondents 3 to 7 herein was given on lease 100 years ago for cultivation purpose. It is also clear that the said land is situated at the tail-end of the tank and it is surrounded on three sides by patta land as admitted in the counter filed by the Tahasildar. In the said counter it is also admitted that Ac.5.00 of land in question was not submergible even if the tank is full. In the light of the above material a finding was recorded by the Settlement Officer that Ac.5.00 of land in question was ryoti in nature and the same was in continuous possession and enjoyment of family members of the respondents 3 to 7 much prior to the notified date. It is also relevant to note that Sy.No.58/1 comprises a large extent of Ac.74.46 cents and in the absence of any clinching evidence it cannot be assumed that Ac.5.00 of land which is the subject of the present writ petition was a non-ryoti land as claimed by the writ petitioner. Hence the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Officer as well as by the Commissioner, Appeals warrant no interference by this Court. Accordingly the writ petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 23RD December,2008 *TSNR