THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 20940 of 2002 Oral order: The petitioner, namely the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati, states that respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the year 1982 before the Settlement Officer, Nellore, for grant of ryotwari patta, in respect of an extent of Ac.1.02 cents of land in Sy. No. 10/2 of Thambuvanigunta village h/o Akkarampalle village. The Settlement Officer, Nellore, vide orders dated 25.08.1982 granted ryotwari patta in respect of the said land to respondent No.2. Aggrieved thereby, the Joint Collector, Chittoor, filed revision under Section 5(2) of the Act, before the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who also took up the matter suo motu, and by order dated 15.11.1996 allowed the revision and set aside the orders dated 25.08.1982 passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, granting ryotwari patta, in favour of respondent No.2. While so, respondent No.1, namely M/s. Sudalagunta Hotels Private Limited, Tirupati, who purchased the land in question from respondent No.2, under registered sale deed, filed further revision before the Commissioner of Land Administration, who vide orders dated 16.05.2000 allowed the same, and set aside the order of the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the land in question is not a ryoti land and that neither the petitioner’s vendor nor the petitioner cultivated the same at any point of time prior to and post-abolition period. He submitted that the saswatha patta, purported to have been granted by the landholder, based on which respondent No.2 claimed grant of ryotwari patta, is a fabricated one. There is no pre-abolition record (for the period prior to 01.07.1945) produced by respondent No.2 to show that the land in question is a ryoti land and that it was under the cultivation of the his vendor of subsequently by him. However, the Settlement Officer, Nellore, without verifying the pre- abolition record, and in spite of the land being recorded in the revenue records as “assessed waste”, merely based on the fabricated saswatha patta, and the cist receipts, which relate to the post-abolition period, granted ryotwari land to respondent No.2. He further submitted that no notice was issued by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, to the petitioner before granting ryotwari patti to respondent No.2. He submitted that since the Settlement Officer, Nellore, without notice to the petitioner, and without verifying the pre-abolition record, had erroneously granted ryotwari patta in favour of respondent No.2, the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rightly allowed the suo motu revision and the revision filed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor, but respondent No.3, namely the Commissioner of Commissioner of Land Administration, committed an error in allowing the further revision filed by respondent No.1, vide the impugned orders dated 16.05.2000, and prayed that the said order be set aside and the writ petition be allowed and the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, be restored. Respondent No.1 filed counter. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, which was upheld by respondent No.3 by the impugned order. Reiterating the counter averments, he submitted that respondent No.2, who is a freedom fighter and in occupation of about one and a half acre of land in Sy. No. 10/2 of Akkanampalli revenue village, was granted saswatha patta by the land holder on 05.02.1940, and since then he paid cist, as evident from the cist receipts for the period from 1941 to 1978. He submitted that during the survey operations, pattas were granted in respect of lands that were in cultivation and were cultivable. The land granted to respondent No.2 was classified as “Anadeenam Dry”. As grant of ryotwari patta, takes lot of time, DKT patta was granted to respondent No.2 during 1961. Thereafter, respondent No.2 along with neighbourers, applied for grant ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Act, in the year 1970. As the said application was not taken up, he made another application in the year 1982 along with condone delay petition. The Settlement Officer, Nellore, having considered the claim of respondent No.2, in the light of the material placed before him, allowed the claim of respondent No.2 for grant of ryotwari patta. Though the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, in the revision filed by the Joint Collector, Chittoor and the suo motu revision, set aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, but the Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, by reason of the impugned order, has rightly upheld the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, granting ryotwari patta in favour of respondent No.2, from whom respondent No.1 purchased for valid consideration, and no interference is called for therewith. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has sought for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order and consequently quash the same, and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of such a relief, has to be considered in the light of the scope and power of this Court to issue a writ of certiorari. The law is well settled that a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that while passing the impugned order, the subordinate court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority, ignored legally admissible evidence or took into consideration inadmissible evidence or overlooked relevant material or the order is based on extraneous consideration/factors. The law is also well settled that while exercising certiorari jurisdiction, the writ Court would not sit in appeal over the orders of the subordinate court, tribunal or quasi-judicial authority and interfere with the findings and conclusions recorded by such subordinate court, tribunal or authority, merely because on a re- appreciation of evidence, different finding or conclusion is possible. The writ Court will not go into sufficiency or adequacy of evidence that may have been relied by the subordinate court, tribunal or quasi judicial authority for reaching a particular finding or conclusion. The apex Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan[1], considered the scope and power of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari and held as under: A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or properly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity, be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be re-opened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however, grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction f the Tribunal and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within the parameters and scope of certiorari jurisdiction of this Court, as noted above, the sustainability or otherwise of the impugned order, be considered. Though the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Settlement Officer, Nellore, without verifying the pre-abolition record, had granted ryotwari patta to respondent No.2 in respect of the land in question, merely based on saswatha patta, which he contends is forged, the fact remains, a perusal of the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, it would become clear that it was the specific case of respondent No.2 before the Settlement Officer, Nellore, that he was in possession and cultivating the land, much prior to and after the abolition, and to substantiate his possession, he produced Ex. P1- saswatha patta dated 05.02.1940 issued by the landholder, and cist paid to the government vide Exs. P2 to P8, cist receipts dated 10.05.1941, 15.02.1942, 30.04.1943, 06.07.1944, 30.06.1945, 10.04.1946 and 02.03.1947, for the pre and post abolition period. Even before survey also, the petitioner paid cist to the government, as is evident from Exs. P9 and P10-cist receipts dated 06.06.1957 and 01.06.1958. Respondent No.2, thereafter, was granted DKT patta on 05.04.1961, which was marked as Ex. P11, and after grant of DKT patta, also he paid cist to the government, as is evident from Exs. P12 to P19-cist receipts dated 06.06.1959, 05.03.1960, 23.02.1963, 23.04.1964, 20.02.1965, 28.04.1971, 10.05.1972 and 09.04.1975. This material produced by respondent No. 2, clinchingly establishes that long standing possession of respondent No.2 of the land in question, for the period from prior to 01.07.1945 and after the abolition of the estate. The non-production of pre-abolition record cannot be attributed to respondent No.2 because, it is the specific case of respondent No.1, who purchased the land from respondent No.2, that after abolition of the estates, including the present Tambuvanigunta Inam Estate, the entire record relating to the estate, was in the custody of the District Collector, Chittoor, and even though respondent No.2 and subsequently respondent No.1 upon purchase, requested the revenue authorities to furnish record of the pre-abolition period, the revenue authorities have not furnished the same. That being so, respondent No. 2 cannot be faulted, for non-production of the pre-abolition record. If according to the petitioner, the land in question was not ryoti land and that respondent No.2 had never cultivate the same, nothing prevented the petitioner and revenue authorities from producing the pre-abolition record, which was in their custody, and disproving the case of respondent No.2 that the land in question is not ryoti land and that he was not in possession of the same at any point of time, and as such, he was not entitled to grant of ryotwari patta, but the petitioner did not do, much less furnished copies of the same to respondent No.2 nor respondent No.1. This apart, even though writ petition was admitted in the year 2002 and the record called for, the only record that is made available to the Court, is only the record relating to the proceedings before the Settlement Officer, Nellore, Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, and the Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, but no record pertaining to the pre-abolition period is produced or made available to the court. The contention of the petitioner that before granting ryotwari patta to respondent No.2, the Settlement Officer, did not issue notice to him cannot be accepted, because in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer, Nellore, and as is evident from the record produced, the petitioner is arrayed as respondent, and the proceedings clearly reflect that notices were served on the Tahsildar, Chandragiri, for filing objections, if any, and it is the specific case of respondent No.1 that only after the petitioner entered his appearance, the Settlement Officer, Nellore, condoned the delay and considered the case of respondent No.2 for grant of ryotwari patta. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that no notice was served on him by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, before granting ryotwari patta to respondent No.2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that after abolition of the estate, the paimash number 8/2 is converted as Sy. No. 10/2D-2, and relying on the entries in Adangal/Pahani Village Account No.3 of Akkarampalle village, wherein it is mentioned as A.W.D. and the entries as against the land in Sy. No. 10/2 in the Statement of Porambokes and all Unoccupied Lands, wherein an extent of Acs. 10.12 cents is recorded as A.W.D. and if fair land register, it is recorded as “Assessed Waste”, he submitted that the land claimed by respondent No.2 belonged to the government and in fact stood vested in them. Hence, he contends that the land in respect of which respondent No.2 was granted ryotwari patta and from respondent No.1 purchased, should be treated as government land. However, it is the case of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that as after conduct of survey, the land in question, in the revenue records, was recorded as A.W.D., respondent No.2 immediately submitted application under Section 11(a) of the Act for grant of ryotwari patta, and the Settlement Officer, Nellore, upon considering the request of respondent No.2, in the light of the materials placed by him, granted ryotwari patta. This apart, it is his further case that the Adangal, relied upon by the petitioner which is of 1411 fasli, and the extracts of the Statement of Poramboke and all Unoccupied Lands and Fair Land Register, do not assist the petitioner in any manner because they relate to the post-abolition period. Since for grant of ryotwari patta, pre- abolition record is relevant and not the post-abolition record, the documents relied upon by the petitioner to contend that the land in question is government land, cannot be accepted because they relate to the post-abolition period, and according to the petitioner, were changed at the time of conducting survey. Respondent No.1 to prove the long standing possession of respondent No.2, placed before this Court, certain materials, namely letter dated 12.04.1954, addressed by respondent No.2 to the Deputy Collector/Manager (Estates), Srikalahasthi, wherein respondent No.2 made a request to assign the land in question as he got possession of the from his ancestors; another letter dated 20.10.1955, addressed by him to the Deputy Collector/Manager (Estates), Srikalahasthi, stating that as assignment will be made only after survey and settlement, his request to grant annual lease, as suggested by him, may be considered so that the land will be in his possession till survey and settlement is made and assignment is granted. Acting on the said request, the Assistant Manager, Kalahasthi, vide proceedings dated 24.01.1956, informed respondent No.2 that the land in question, in respect of which, he applied for assignment, will be given on annual lease subject to certain conditions as per latest order till survey and settlement operations are over, and that if he is agreeable to take the land on lease, he may apply for the same with a rough sketch of the plot giving boundaries of extent etc. These three documents, produced by respondent No.1 clearly show that respondent No.2 was in possession of the land in question during 1950’s, and was seeking to protect his possession. In fact, considering the long standing possession of respondent No.2, DKT patta dated 05.04.1961, was issued to him, which was marked as Ex.P11, in the proceedings before the Settlement Officer, Nellore, who taking into consideration the said document also, granted ryotwari patta to respondent No.1. The fact that the DKT patta granted to respondent No.2 is genuine, is evident from the fact that alleging that respondent No.2 violated the conditions of the patta, notice was given to him in the year 1978, and responding to the said notice, he submitted written statement before the Tahsildar of Chandragiri, on 18.06.1978, as is evident from the record produced by the petitioner. However, it is stated that no action, thereafter, has been taken, and as of today, the said DKT patta granted to respondent No.2, from whom respondent No.1 purchased, has not been cancelled. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that respondent No.2, from whom respondent No.1 has purchased the land in question, has been in possession of the same prior to 01.07.1945 and after abolition of the estate, thereby entitling grant of ryotwari patta, which was rightly granted by the Settlement Officer, Nellore, as upheld by the Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in the further revision filed by respondent No.1 against the order of the Director of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer, Nellore, in the revision filed by the Joint Collector and the suo motu revision taken up by him, and considering the scope of certiorari jurisdiction of this court, I am of the considered opinion no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by respondent No.3. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 28th April, 2010 KSR [1] AIR 1964 SC 477