THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA. W.P. No. 25363 of 2007 Oral order: By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to implement the orders dated 16.03.2006 passed by the Common Appeals in Commissioner Appeal Proc. No. P1/3/373/2004. The petitioner ﬁled two applications under Section 11(a) of the Estates (Abolition) Act, 1948 in the years 1980 and 1981 for grant of patta in respect of the land in an extent of Acs. 1.84 cents and Acs. 2.00 in Sy. No. 69/6 and Sy. No. 72/P respectively of Chinakanaparthy village of Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District. In the application ﬁled in the year 1980, registered as S.R. No.90/11(a)/80 CRT, the Settlement Oﬃcer, after due enquiry and examination of the records, by order dated 20.06.1988, ordered grant of pattas. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent, namely the Collector, Chittoor, ﬁled revision petition in RP No. 166/88 (H1) on the ﬁle of the Special Commissioner & Director of Settlements, A.P., which by order dated 03.08.2000 was dismissed conﬁrming the order of the Settlement Officer. While in the application ﬁled in the year 1981, registered as S.R. No. 37/11(a)/81 CRT, the Settlement Oﬃcer, after conducting detailed enquiry, vide order dated 20.11.1982 allowed the request of the petitioner for grant of patta. Thereafter, the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement, A.P. had initiated suo motu revisional enquiry in exercise of the power conferred on him under Section 5(2) the Estates (Abolition) Act, 1948, in RP. No. 202/84/H1, against the order of the Settlement Oﬃcer dated 20.11.1982, however vide order dated 16.03.2003, dropped further proceedings in the matter. Against the orders dated 03.08.2000 and 16.03.2003 respectively passed in the RPs by the Special Oﬃcer and Director of Settlements, conﬁrming the orders passed by the Settlement Oﬃcer, granting pattas, further revisions were ﬁled before the Commissioner, Appeals, who vide orders dated 16.03.2006 passed in Common Appeal Proc. No. 91/373/04, conﬁrmed the orders appealed. The petitioner states that the said order attained ﬁnality as no further proceedings were initiated by the respondents before any higher forum. He states that as the respondents despite several representations did not implement the said orders, he ﬁled writ petition in W.P. No. 2948 of 2004 seeking directions to the respondents to implement the orders of the Settlement Oﬃcer, and on the representation made by the respondents that they ﬁled representations, this Court by order dated 22.03.2004 disposed of the said writ petition directing the revisional authority to dispose of the revisions ﬁled by the respondents. In pursuance of the said order, the revisional authority i.e. the Commissioner, Appeals, vide common orders dated 16.03.2006, dismissed the said revisions. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submits that he made representations dated 27.05.2007 and 25.06.2007 requesting the respondents to implement the orders dated 16.03.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Appeals, conﬁrming the orders passed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement, who conﬁrmed the orders of the Settlement Oﬃcer, but as no action thereon had been taken by the respondents. Hence, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondents to implement the said orders. Respondent No.3, namely the Tahsildar, Thottambedu Mandal, ﬁled counter and additional counter on behalf of the respondents. The learned Assistant Government Pleader reiterating the counter and additional counter averments submitted that neither the petitioner nor his predecessors-in-title had claimed the land in question. At the time of survey of the lands, the lands in question, in an extent of Acs. 1.84 cents and Acs. 2.00 in Sy. Nos. 69/6 and 72 part respectively, were found lying waste, and therefore, they were classiﬁed as assessed waste wet land grazing ground poramboke, and later on i.e. from 1937 Doruvu Bavi, and to evidence, this they ﬁled fair adangal pertaining to the survey of the land in question. He submitted that if the lands were under cultivation of the petitioner at the time of survey and settlement operations conducted by the government, he might have been identiﬁed as pattadar for the lands in question, and his name would have been recorded as pattadar duly assigning the patta, and therefore, it becomes clear that the lands in question are government lands and classiﬁed as assessed waste wet and grazing ground poramboke and subsequently classiﬁed as Doruvu Bavi. The land in question was assigned to landless poor persons in the year 1978 and the assignees are in cultivation of the same. The petitioner made the claim belatedly in the year 1980, and the Settlement Oﬃcer without giving any opportunity to the Tahsildar has granted ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the Estates (Abolition) Act, 1948. Aggrieved thereby, a revision was ﬁled by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, which was dismissed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, and questioning the same, another revision was ﬁled before the Commissioner, Appeal, who also by order dated 16.03.2006 dismissed the same. He further submitted that Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Sri K.V. Subba Rao and Sri A. Ramamurthy Naidu, who worked as Settlement Oﬃcers, Nellore, issued several pattas without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the Director of Settlements in the Oﬃce of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration in Circular Ref. No. H1/3420/89 (DOS), dated 23.02.1993, has directed the District Collector, not to implement the orders issued by the above-mentioned Settlement Oﬃcer, granting pattas. He submitted that the Settlement Oﬃcer who directed issuance of pattas was dismissed from service. Hence, he submitted that no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in not implementing the orders of the Settlement Oﬃcer, which were confirmed in revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the pattas granted to the petitioner in respect of the land in question, in pursuance of the orders of the Settlement Oﬃcer, which were conﬁrmed by the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements as also the Commissioner, Appeal, have not been cancelled by the respondents. In fact, the respondents have not disputed the fact that they have not assailed the orders dated 16.03.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Appeals, conﬁrming the order of the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlements, which had conﬁrmed the order of the Settlement Oﬃcer, granting pattas to the petitioner in respect of the land in question, before any higher forum. Though the respondents in the additional counter ﬁled by them have taken a stand that Sri A.D.V. Reddy, Sri K.V. Subba Rao and Sri A. Ramamurthy Naidu, the then Settlement Oﬃcers, granted hundreds of bogus pattas, and that the Settlement Oﬃcer, who granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the lands in question was dismissed from service, the fact remains, the respondents have not brought this fact to the notice of the higher authorities, before whom they ﬁled revisions assailing the order of the Settlement Oﬃcer, granting pattas to the petitioner in respect of the land in question. The record produced by them also does not disclose any such attempt having been made by the respondents. It is no doubt true if pattas are granted to individuals without any enquiry or the pattas granted are not genuine or are bogus and are fabricated, certainly the respondents, as directed in the Memo dated 23.02.1993, issued by the Director of Settlements in the Oﬃce of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, are entitled to take steps to cancel the same, but the respondents have not taken any steps in that regard. In fact, the pattas granted to the petitioner in respect of the land in question are still in force. Further, though the Special Commissioner and Director of Settlement, in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.2.00, in respect of which patta was granted to the petitioner, initiated suo motu enquiry, the fact remains, subsequently vide orders dated 16.03.2003 the said proceedings were dropped. The respondents having not taken any steps to cancel the pattas granted in favour of the petitioner, and the grant of pattas in respect of the land in question by the Settlement Oﬃcer, having been conﬁrmed by the revisional authorities, and no further proceedings having been initiated by the respondents against the said order, and the said order being still in force, I am of the considered opinion that there can be no reason why the respondents, as prayed for by the petitioner, should be directed to implement the said orders. Hence, the writ petition is allowed is allowed as prayed for. The respondents are directed to implement the orders dated 16.03.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Appeals, in Common Appeals Proc. No. P1/3/373/2004. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 19th August, 2008 KSR