THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.No.8364 of 2000 Between: G.Raghavulu. … Petitioner and The Commissioner of Appeals and others. … Respondents ORDER: This writ petition has been filed questioning the order passed by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.P2/572/97, dated 12-11-1999, in confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in R.P.No.67/89 (H2), dated 30-01-1997. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner namely Gunduboyina Raghavulu filed an application in the month of October, 1984 before the 3rd respondent for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948, (for short “the E.A. Act”) for the land admeasuring Ac.4-57 cents in R.S.No.97/1 and Ac.4-49 cents in R.S.No.97/21 of Chutti Village, Balayapalli Mandal, Nellore District, stating that he has been in occupation and possession of the said land prior to 01-07-1945 by cultivating the said lands. During the pendency of the proceedings before the 3rd respondent, the said Gunduboyina Raghavulu died on 26-12-1984 and the petitioner came on record as only legal heir of Gunduboyina Raghavulu. The 3rd respondent by order, dated 16-09-1987, allowed the application by granting ryotwari patta in favour of the petitioner, based on Ex.P-2-Land Revenue Receipts for Faslis 1345 to 1357; Ex.P-3-Dakal Takeed, dated 22- 06-1942 of Peshkar’s office, Ex.P-4-Land Revenue Receipts for Faslis 1384 to 1387; Ex.R-1-Extract of land register; Ex.R-2-Extract of statement of S.F.7 in respect of S.No.3 and Ex.R-3-Extract of dittam relating to Fasli 1350. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent filed revision before the 2nd respondent stating that the 3rd respondent erroneously granted patta in favour of the petitioner, basing on the aforesaid documents, though the said documents have not been proved and established, with regard to the genuineness. The 2nd respondent through order, dated 30-01- 1997 in R.P.No.67/89 (H2), allowed the revision setting aside the order of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent through order, dated 12-11-1999, in proceedings No.P2/572/97, dismissed the revision confirming the order of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for ryotwari patta as per Section 11(b) of the E.A.Act, if he proves his possession and cultivation as on 01-07-1945. It is stated that the documents produced by him are true, valid and genuine. But, without any justification whatsoever, the 2nd respondent disbelieving the said documents, set aside the order of the 3rd respondent. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to establish his possession as on 01-07-1945 and the cist receipts produced before the 3rd respondent pertaining to 1345 to 1357 Faslis and the Dakal Takeed, dated 22-06-1942 are not genuine documents, as there is no seal and authentication and the said documents are fabricated. It is further stated that the said land was never in cultivation of the petitioner or his father or his ancestors and the said application has been filed after a lapse of 28 years. The 3rd respondent failed to consider the Survey Land Register, S.F.7 and old dittam of the village. It is further stated that Takeed, dated 22-06-1942, produced by the Zamindari Venkatagiri Samstanam office was not proved and in fact the said land is classified as “Pasuvulakancha” but not as a ryoti land and therefore, Exs.P-2 to P-4 are fabricated documents and it cannot be relied on. Whether the said documents are valid, real and genuine, depend upon the nature of the land also. It is further stated that the land in question originally belonged to Venkatagiri Estate and after taking the Estate by the Government with effect from 07-09-1949, the ryots are entitled for ryotwari patta under Section 11(b) of the Act in respect of ryoti lands, but not for non-ryoti lands; waste lands, pasture lands, lanka lands, forests mines and minerals, quarries etc. It is stated that the said land was registered as “pasuvulakancha” earmarked as poramboke land but not cultivable land. Thus, it is stated that there is a prohibition for grant of ryotwari patta under Section 3(b) of the E.A.Act also. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the land admeasuring Ac.229.94 cents in old S.No.3, the persons in possession have been granted ryotiwari pattas. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents denied the said contention stating that the entire land is registered as “Pasuvulakancha, which is meant for communal purpose as grazing ground for cattle. Therefore, no one has been granted ryotwari patta in respect of the said land. The 3rd respondent considered the claim of the petitioner taking the local name of the land shown as “Pirla Mitta” but in fact the said land is not “Pirla Mitta” but it was registered as “Pasuvula Kancha”. It is further stated that the Special Deputy Tahsildhar for Settlement had recommended to register the said land as Forest Poramboke after making necessary inspection on 31-03-1953 and the then Assistant Settlement Officer, Nellore, also recommended to register the said land as Forest Poramboke. Accordingly, the similar claims in respect of Ac.25-00 gts., which are said to be under dry cultivation as per S.F.7 by one Tirumala and eleven others and by one Penchaliah for an extent of Ac.3-00 gts. have also been rejected by the Settlement officer in the year 1963-64. The petitioner had not made the claim petition at the appropriate time, but after long lapse of 28 years, the claim has been made i.e., in the month of October, 1984. The revision was not allowed merely on the ground of limitation but it was allowed on merits holding that the petitioner is not entitled for ryotwari patta, as the ryotwari patta was obtained on the false plea of “Pirla Mitta” but not “Pasuvula Kancha”. I am of the opinion that as per the dittam of the village for Fasli 1350, Survey Land Register and S.F.No.7, the land in question has been classified as “Pasuvula Kancha”, which is meant for communal purpose as grazing ground for cattle. As the said land is shown as grazing ground for cattle, which is meant for communal purpose and falls under Section 3(16) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Land Act, 1908, the petitioner is not entitled for ryotwari patta under Section 11(a) of the E.A.Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the order of the 1st respondent, dated 12-11-1999, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 30-01-1997. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 19-09-2007 Note: Issue C.C. in ten days (B/o) Prv