THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 174 of 2009 DATE: 19th July, 2011 Between: Macherla Penchlaiah … Appellant / Writ Petitioner And: The Government of A.P. prop by Its Principal Secretary to Revenue, Secretariat Hyderabad and 6 others … Respondents / Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL No. 174 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice. P. Durga Prasad) The unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent questioning the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.9330 of 2002. According to the writ petitioner, an extent of Ac.3-76 cents of land in Malempuram village, Chitvel Mandal was assigned to the petitioner in the year 1967 and the said land was alleged to have been sold to one Yedoti Venkataiah under a registered sale deed dated 06.05.1967 and the said Venkataiah in turn sold the said land to one Thunga Papaiah who is the husband and father of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively, under a registered sale deed dated 10.11.1997. After a lapse of 25 years, the petitioner approached the respondent No.4 with a complaint that the said Thunga Papaiah high- handedly grabbed the said land. The respondent No.4 conducted an enquiry under the provisions of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, the Act) and held that Thunga Papaiah was a landless poor person and has purchased the said land bonafidely for a valuable consideration. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner has filed an appeal before the respondent No.3 and the same was allowed on 29.09.1996. Questioning the said order of the respondent No.3, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have preferred a second appeal before the respondent No.2 and the same was allowed on 10.09.2001 setting aside the order of the respondent No.3. The writ petitioner has filed a revision petition before the 1st respondent and the same was dismissed on 16.04.2002. Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.9330 of 2002 seeking to set aside the order of the 1st respondent and the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dated 16.10.2008 and the same is being questioned in this appeal. The appellant’s counsel has contended that the land alleged to have been purchased by respondent Nos.5 and 6 pertains to Sy.No.799; whereas the land assigned to him is in Sy.No.799/3 and the lower Court ought to have disbelieved the document produced by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and he further contended that the said document produced by respondent Nos.5 and 6 is a forged and fabricated document and the civil suit filed by the predecessors of respondent Nos.5 and 6 and the petitioners was dismissed and the respondent No.3 has rightly accepted the contentions of the writ petitioner in his order dated 29.09.1996, and as such the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 has pleaded that Thunga Papaiah is in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land from the date of his purchase under registered document and also by the date of coming into force of the said Act, and the concurrent findings given by the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 are not liable to be set aside. The writ petitioner was assigned land to an extent of Ac.3-76 cents in Malempuram village, Chitvel Mandal in the year 1967 and he has sold the said land to one Yedoti Venkataiah under registered sale deed dated 06.05.1967, and Yedoti Venkataiah has in turn sold that land to Thunga Papaiah under registered sale deed dated 10.11.1997, who is the husband and father of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 respectively. When the writ petitioner has questioned the said sale deeds alleging that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have high-handedly grabbed the land assigned to him, the respondent No.4 after conducting an enquiry rejected the contention of the writ petitioner. When the same was questioned before the respondent No.3, he came to a different conclusion and held that the sale deed was not executed by the writ petitioner and the land was sub-divided prior to the execution of the said sale deed. The respondent No.2, in an appeal against the said order of respondent No.3, has considered in detail and held that the sale deed is a genuine document and the purchase made by Thunga Papaiah is a valid one and the appeal entertained by respondent No.3 is barred by limitation. The said order of respondent No.2 was confirmed in the revision by respondent No.1. As per the report of Mandal Revenue Officer, after alienating the land by the petitioner, he left his habitation and resided at Chinna Rachapalli hamlet of Thummakonda Village, Chitvel Mandal for 10 years and the said Thunga Papaiah dug a well in the land and planted lime trees, and that when some of the lime trees withered away, he planted mango trees which are still in existence. The said findings recorded by the respondent No.2 and confirmed by the respondent No.1 in the revision, does not suffer from any error which requires intervention in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single Judge has rightly held that there is no error of law and jurisdiction in the orders of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the Judicial Review under Article 226 is confined to the decision making process, but not to the merits of the decision. Therefore, we hold that the said order of the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference in this appeal. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed, and in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ______________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD 19th July, 2011 KSM